Do you believe in absolute truth?

[SteveS]

Well, they're way less creepy then Teletubbies.....

[donkeyhoty]

If they talk, or have a cartoon/show, then I'd say that's definitive proof of no god.

[SteveS]

Haha!  I agree...

[Joel25]

It does not logically follow that the source of truth must be a god or gods however...

This is a good discussion - If we rule out the source of truth as a god or gods then what is the logical source of truth?

This is tricky to answer because if we say that the source of truth is knowledge or reason then who is to say that we (man) are not at only a mid-developmental stage of the evolutionary process and our reasoning faculties/abilities are not yet developed to be fully functional and accurate? (In other words, maybe our brains are not yet developed to the point that we can  truly have accurate reasoning capability but we require another 50 million years of evolving [or 100 million years, or any other number of years]) If we say that yes, our reason is fully developed and accurate then we make the error or having validated our own opinion (a circular argument).

It seems then that if cannot use ourselves and our own reason to be the judge of absolute truth and we have a hunch that absolute truth exists (2+2=4 and "Absolute truth does not exist" is by definition a false statement) then the only way that we can accurately find a way to make this work while being intellectually honest  is if in fact there is something/Someone outside of ourselves (ourselves meaning man: man who is obviously flawed) that can give and be the judge of absolute truth.

[SteveS]

If we rule out the source of truth as a god or gods then what is the logical source of truth?

I'm going to answer "reality".  What's real is true, what's not is false.

This is tricky to answer because if we say that the source of truth is knowledge or reason then who is to say that we (man) are not at only a mid-developmental stage of the evolutionary process and our reasoning faculties/abilities are not yet developed to be fully functional and accurate?

You could say that our perceptive powers may occasionally lead us astray, and are limited in capability, such that there are instances when we are unable to discern reality readily.  Or, perhaps, there is some other barrier that prevents us from acquiring knowledge about a particular thing.  But, I really don't understand "partially developed reasoning".  If we are only at a mid-level of developing reason, then presumably we were previously at a lower level of development.  Can you give me some example of less developed reasoning to make your case?  What is "partially developed logic", for instance?

It seems then that if cannot use ourselves and our own reason to be the judge of absolute truth and we have a hunch that absolute truth exists (2+2=4 and "Absolute truth does not exist" is by definition a false statement) then the only way that we can accurately find a way to make this work while being intellectually honest is if in fact there is something/Someone outside of ourselves (ourselves meaning man: man who is obviously flawed) that can give and be the judge of absolute truth.

I think an appeal to an oustide source does not help the situation.  Allow me to explain:

If we are flawed, and cannot perceive "absolute truth", what difference would it make if "something/someone outside of ourselves" tried to "give and be the judge of absolute truth" --- we could not receive it, because we cannot perceive it, and we could not understand the judgment, because we are flawed.  So - how would we know the something/someone is being honest?  Is this "thing" really able to give and judge absolute truth, or is "it" lying?  We couldn't tell.  So how would we decide?  We can't.

[Joel25]

If we rule out the source of truth as a god or gods then what is the logical source of truth?

I'm going to answer "reality". What's real is true, what's not is false.

Absolute truth requires absolute certainty. Absolute certainty is impossible for man to have outside of man's dependence on some utterly reliable and infallible outside source. Independently, man by definition is a finite creature and cannot examine all of the evidence in the universe/or ever was in the universe and therefore cannot make a statement of absolute certainty.

For example, let's assume that we are on a quest to prove that there is no God. (Let's first ignore the obvious possibility that if there is a God then by definition of "God" and "man" then if there is a God then that God could choose to 1. Let us find Him or 2. Not let us find Him or 3. Let us find out just as much as He chooses to let us find out).  So we first have to assume that if there is a God then He has provided some scrap of evidence somewhere and at some point in time that He exists. What happens then if the only scrap of evidence that God exists and has provided could have been found on a molecule on a flea's back that was crawling the back of a Yak in the Eastern Himalayas in 1689? Since we were not there present to examine the evidence does that in fact negate the fact that the evidence existed? No, of course not. The next question then is, "That's absurd - if there was a God then He would reveal Himself to us so that we knew He existed beyond any doubts - why wouldn't He reveal Himself to us?" The plausible answer if there is a God is then that, "He is God and by definition He can do whatever He wants to do."  We are then forced to admit that we cannot prove with absolute certainty that there is not a God.*


*It is also then tempting to then say that we can arrive at "probable knowledge" of absolute truth based on our limited scientific knowledge and discovery of the world around us and that body of knowledge then in fact is truth - not so, because to then make that very statement is to make a statement of absolute certainty.  

What is "partially developed logic", for instance?

This is precisely the point that I am trying to make - in that if we are products of an evolutionary process then who is to say whether we have a fully developed sense of reason, a half developed sense of reason, or really no sense of reason at all? Well, we might say, of course man's reason is developed - We have perfect logic and reasoning ability - I know rationality and logic. As you can see the only confirmation of man's reason is man - a circular argument.

Is this "thing" really able to give and judge absolute truth, or is "it" lying? We couldn't tell. So how would we decide? We can't.

That's the very point - we are in no position to judge and decide. Why? because we are obviously fallible and finite creatures. If we position ourselves as independent from the "It"/God/"Thing" then we cannot make any statements of absolute certainty and in turn absolute truth because of our very nature. We can't decide what is absolute truth outside of a dependence on the "It"/God/"Thing" and what "It"/"God" has revealed as the only source of absolute truth.

[pjkeeley]

What happens then if the only scrap of evidence that God exists and has provided could have been found on a molecule on a flea's back that was crawling the back of a Yak in the Eastern Himalayas in 1689?

That's really silly. What kind of evidence would that be? It probably would have helped your argument to pick an example that made sense.

We are then forced to admit that we cannot prove with absolute certainty that there is not a God.

I don't think many of us would argue with that point, mostly because we don't really care.

Thing is, whether there is an absolute truth of which we can be absolutely certain is really quite pointless thinking about. That's pretty much all there is to it.

[Joel25]

What happens then if the only scrap of evidence that God exists and has provided could have been found on a molecule on a flea's back that was crawling the back of a Yak in the Eastern Himalayas in 1689?

That's really silly. What kind of evidence would that be? It probably would have helped your argument to pick an example that made sense.

That's the very point. Using a silly obscure example highlights the important thing that I am trying to illustrate: Man is very limited and independently cannot exhaustively prove anything. (Why does it highlight this? Because there are an infinite number of places and points in time that  we [man] could not have been throughout the course of the history).

We are then forced to admit that we cannot prove with absolute certainty that there is not a God.

I don't think many of us would argue with that point, mostly because we don't really care.
Thing is, whether there is an absolute truth of which we can be absolutely certain is really quite pointless thinking about. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Whether you care or not does not have any kind of effect on what the truth is. Choosing to not think about something or choosing to not care about something does not make the dilemma go away.

I am actually somewhat curious as to why you do not care though... If you aren't interested in seeking truth and you will freely admit to it then what is the point of even attempting a rational discussion (because all remarks will be reflecting subjective self serving or self indulgence rather than objective truth and some ascertainable outside standard) ?

[McQ]

Joel , I've been reading this with a little interest. First, I'm not sure what the purpose is behind the original question. Could you clarify that, please?

Then, please clarify why is there is a need to have this thing called "absolute certainty". Specifically, what types of things do humans need to be "absolutely certain" about? Specifically. Did I mention, specifically?  :wink:

Then, so what if we humans cannot be absolutely certain about everything? Not being certain about everything is no reason to fill in the gaps of knowledge with a hypothesized god or gods. That's not a rational or logical standpoint.

I don't know if this is the argument you are trying to make or not, so correct me if I assume too much.

That's all for now, as I don't want to proceed further without understanding your point. Thanks.

[Joel25]

Hi McQ,

If we rule out the source of truth as a god or gods then what is the logical source of truth?

The purpose behind the above question is that man is not capable of independently judging anything to be absolutely true (because of man's inherent and drastic shortcomings and finiteness).

The very next response by you (and anyone that is thinking) should then be what you have already alluded to which is - why should we then assume that just because we do not have the capability to judge truth for ourselves that we should "fill in the gaps of knowledge" with a hypothesized god, God, or gods.

So the purpose of the initial question is to show that independently man cannot ascertain truth and must rely on something outside of himself in order to have absolute truth (and when I say absolute truth I really mean truth period because is truth really truth if it is not absolute? I would submit that no, a half truth and a 99.99999% truth are both still untrue). So what is important about making this point? The importance lies in that as said in the above sentence "man must rely on something outside of himself in order to have absolute truth". Once that point is realized then it is also realized that an element of faith and trust has to be involved (not necessarily in god, God, or gods or course but in something outside of ones self).

Then, please clarify why is there is a need to have this thing called "absolute certainty". Specifically, what types of things do humans need to be "absolutely certain" about?

Well, I would think that deep down inside it would drive me crazy to not know anything for certain and I would suspect that others would feel the same way - its almost as if humans are wired to want to know. Specifically, the types of things that I need to be absolutely certain about to keep myself from going insane   is why am I here? how did I get here? do I have a purpose? where am I going when I die? Those are some of the specific things that all humans should need to be absolutely certain about.

[Tom62]

So what is important about making this point? The importance lies in that as said in the above sentence "man must rely on something outside of himself in order to have absolute truth".

Sorry Joel25, but that is NOT an absolute truth but an assumption.

[Joel25]

So what is important about making this point? The importance lies in that as said in the above sentence "man must rely on something outside of himself in order to have absolute truth".

Sorry Joel25, but that is NOT an absolute truth but an assumption.

You are correct if I am saying "man must rely on something outside of himself in order to have absolute truth" personally based on my reason, knowledge, and intellect. You are incorrect though if I am making the statement that "man must rely on something outside of himself in order to have absolute truth" based solely in faith that whatever God says is absolute truth and that God has communicated this absolute truth to man through his words in the Bible* (which I am). So in other words my outside standard for absolute truth is: "Whatever God says = absolute truth". I can't judge it, weigh its merits, or decide for myself if it is indeed true because I am not capable to do so - I have to accept it as true because of its source.

So this is my standard for absolute truth - what is your standard for absolute truth? (Keeping in mind that we have already proven that man and his reasoning capabilities cannot have absolute truth in and of himself almost by definition of man).


*"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6

[Tom62]

Interesting thoughts, but I don't buy it.  Basically you claim that your god is the absolute truth because it is written in the bible. I don't take that as an absolute truth because the bible was written by men. Since men is not able (according to your logic) to judge what "absolute" truth is, we could therefore not rely on the bible for any "absolute" truths. Any information in the Bible about god must therefore be flawed (which must be true, because it contans so many discrepancies). Another problem I have is that there are several other "holy" books about different gods, like f.i. the old greek and roman gods, the god of the Koran, the hindu gods, etc. etc., how can we be certain that these books don't contain the "absolute" truth? I believe that these other books are just like the bible nothing more than books.

[Joel25]

Interesting thoughts, but I don't buy it.

You don't have to buy it   )

* "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." = II Peter 1:21

** "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6

*** "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. " - Acts 17:25-28 (Also, good chapter to read about a philosophical debate in ancient Greece between Paul and certain philosphers:  Online Bible: Acts 17
"But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul." - Deuteronomy 4:29

[Whitney]

I agree that any real truth is an absolute truth if we understand absolute truths to be anything that is wholy true.  I do not think that every truth has to be universally appliable because something something is true in one situation and not another...for instance, it is true that Christianity is popular in America while it is not true that it is popular in Iraq.  You can speak truth of the popularity of Chritianity in one situation yet saying the same in another would be false.  I'm just trying to clarify what we should understand as "truth."

Why do we need something outside of ourselves to know aboslute truth?  Why do you assume that there is an obtainable answer to the questions you mentioned which seem to bother you?  I know that 2+2=4 without consulting something outside of myself.  I can test this by grabing 2 sets of 2 items then counting how many there are when combined and will always get 4 items.  

My non-eternal state does not restrict my ability to at least uncover some absolute truths.  Shouldn't this be a basis for being able to make the claim that humans are able to arrive at absolute truths without relying on an outside source?

If the Bible is written by man and man cannot, as you say, discover aboslute truths then you are relying on the claims of flawed beings for your knowledge of what or whom you should rely on for absolute truth.  It doesn't matter if the Bible says it was the guided work of god or even if it said he wrote it himself...we know men wrote it and men are flawed at achieving pure truth, per your claim, therefore it cannot be trusted as a source of truth.  I doubt you'd believe me if I said I woke up today and suddenly started recieving messages from God that you should follow...how is it any different just because the book is old?