Do you believe in absolute truth?

[McQ]

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

Your argument from the bible is the a prime example of circular reasoning. This is the same stuff I used to argue as a christian. It's old, it's ineffective, and it is disingenuous coming from someone who said that others were using circular reasoning.

You've really got to do better than this. THIS is the epitome of being intellectually dishonest. When I realized that (more than 15 years ago) is when I was able to see at least what was not the truth. Not even mostly the truth. That is the bible.

[Tom62]

An absolute truth means for me that everyone in the whole universe, universally agree that something is 100% true. Since only a tiny fraction of mankind here on planet Earth believes in the god/jezus of the bible, the christian claim on holding the absolute truth is invalid. The bible also doesn't contain the absolute truth,  because even the theists themselves cannot agree upon, which parts of it are true and which parts are not. Saying that the bible is the truth because the bible says so, is circular reasoning.

[pjkeeley]

YES, WE DO RELY ON SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF OURSELVES TO DETERMINE TRUTH. IT IS CALLED REALITY.

[Joel25]

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 Christianity in one situation yet saying the same in another would be false.

Each of the statements that you made, if true, are universally appliable and true because they are 2 separate statements: Statement #1 "Christianity is popular in America" = if true then universally true that Christianity is popular in America. Statement #2 "[Christianity] is [not] popular in Iraq" = if true then universally true that Christianity is not popular in Iraq.

Why do we need something outside of ourselves to know absolute truth?

We need something outside of ourselves to know absolute truth because man and his reason is not a capable measuring stick of truth. Why is this? Because (A) man is finite and unable to exhaustively prove anything with absolute certainty - not able to be in all places at all times throughout history and (B) man is not able to prove anything outside of using himself as the standard for verifying truth - i.e. "I observe this to be true and I verify that this is true because I think it makes sense because of my tests, observations, measurements, experiments, etc. (reason)" - a circular argument (which is what I have been accused of making by relying on the Bible by another poster which I will address below The age of the Bible is not the determining factor as to whether it should be believed or not (although proven historical confirmation [outside historical records besides the Bible] of fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament do offer strong proof - i.e. hundreds of Old Testament Biblical prophecies were fulfilled in the coming of Christ that for them to happen purely by chance is an almost mathematical impossibility) but rather the fact that as I stated above; it claims to be written by a personal God that wants a relationship with man and also claims that if you wholeheartedly seek Him out then you will find Him. I have and I did therefore I know it to be true - and you can as well.

Now, onto the circular argument discussion from McQ which is a very good discussion actually:

Your argument from the bible is the a prime example of circular reasoning. This is the same stuff I used to argue as a Christian. It's old, it's ineffective, and it is disingenuous coming from someone who said that others were using circular reasoning.

Your first sentence is true except for one thing - although it is a circular argument (and I don't deny it and will explain why in a moment) - it is not my argument it is God's. Yes, yes, you may say that "Joel is just saying that" BUT what if it really were true? What if there really were a omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God? Wouldn't an argument based solely on what He has said be the ultimate trump card?

Here is maybe one of the most important parts of anything I have said in these postings: "everyone has to use circular reasoning." Many don't realize that they are even doing so but it is true. I will explain: in order for man independently to state anything as true then man must state it as true and then verify it by his reason, intellect, knowledge - man verifying man - circular argument. What I have said is exactly the same type of circular argument (again, because every argument is circular at its highest level) EXCEPT for it is GOD making a claim and it is verified by GOD. Again, both are circular arguments all the same and both are verified by whoever it is that is making the claim - one circular argument is verified by man and another circular argument is verified by God Himself.

An absolute truth means for me that everyone in the whole universe, universally agree that something is 100% true.

I don't agree with this statement and do not think that it is 100% true therefore you can never have 100% of the world universally agree with you on this statement therefore by your very own standard of truth your statement is false.  

[Tom62]

An absolute truth means for me that everyone in the whole universe, universally agree that something is 100% true.

I don't agree with this statement and do not think that it is 100% true therefore you can never have 100% of the world universally agree with you on this statement therefore by your very own standard of truth your statement is false.  

I was merely using your own logic against you, since you'd said in a previous post the following:

...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).

According to that statement even a 0.00001% of untruth in the bible makes the entire bible untrue! I'm sure we can supply you with valid proof that the bible doesn't match your own criteria of "absolute" truth.

[Joel25]

I'm sure we can supply you with valid proof that the bible doesn't match your own criteria of "absolute" truth.

By all means proceed with your valid proof that the Bible is not true.

And also I'm sorry I just can't let this go:

An absolute truth means for me that everyone in the whole universe, universally agree that something is 100% true.

I don't agree with this statement and do not think that it is 100% true therefore you can never have 100% of the world universally agree with you on this statement therefore by your very own standard of truth your statement is false.

I was merely using your own logic against you, since you'd said in a previous post the following: "...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)."

Sorry, but you are not using my own logic but rather are misinterpreting me. Let me explain: My point in saying, "...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)." was that any part of an untruth in a statement makes the entire statement false NOT that consensus of opinion is required in order for there to be truth!!! In other words, in no way whatsoever am I insinuating that the opinion of the majority is necessarily indicative of truth!!! Whether one person believes something, everyone believes something, or no one believes something has no bearing on what the truth actually is. Do you understand the difference in what I am saying vs. your statement? What you said has nothing at all to do with "my own logic".

[Tom62]

Abolute truths must be always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. The bible fails in that respect, but you probably won't believe that anyway so why should I bother to point out its flaws. Telling us that the bible is the absolute truth, because it is written in the bible is no proof at all. It is like saying, magic truly exists, because it is written in the Harry Potter books.

[McQ]

Joel, you seem to be starting from the assumptions that 1) there MUST be absolute truth and 2) that there is a god. In fact you start from the assumption that not only is there A god, but that there is one and only one god, the god of the bible.

Both are faulty assumptions, and both are allowing this discourse to go off on meaningless tangents that have no bearing on the validity of your premises.

It seems as if most people here are arguing from the standpoint that there must be able to be absolute truth. Absolute truth is a construct that humans debate from a philosophical standpoint. It is an ideal, not a reality (that, obviously, is my answer to the OP). And there does not need to be this "ideal" absolute truth in order for anything to even exist, let alone function.

Second, arguing from the standpoint or base that there is a god, and then defending the bible based on that is circular reasoning, and therefore, not a valid argument for god or for the accuracy of the bible.

Again, you are in a position I was in for years. If all you can do is argue using the bible as its own reference, then there is no point in arguing. And the challenge of proving that the god of the bible does not exist can be and has been undertaken. The bible's own words, measured against historical counterparts, and the last couple of centuries of archaeological and scientific discovery easily prove that.

That said, there is no way to disprove something that is said to exists in a non-corporeal, supernatural way. But there is also no reason to believe in something like that either. I refer to chapter 11 of Carl Sagan's book, Demon Haunted World for and example of why not to believe.

Now, again, I ask. Why does there need to be such a thing as absolute truth, aka the ideal? There does not. There never has been the need, and it is not a possible goal. Science does not say there is, and does not ever try to. Therefore, don't try and hang it on science. It is only a philosophical construct.

I think if this discourse is to continue, I have to politely bow out, as I'm just not that interested in the argument anyway, but wanted to add a few thoughts that I hadn't seen to this point. It's not that I don't think that this is something that can't be discussed, it really just that I've been over this ground so many times (as have philosophers for ages) that it is settled to my satisfaction and I have other pursuits that interest me more.

I'm sure there are plenty of folks here who can continue this fine topic in a positive way.

[Joel25]

I'm sure we can supply you with valid proof that the bible doesn't match your own criteria of "absolute" truth.

By all means proceed with your valid proof that the Bible is not true.

Either way, the point that I am making is that you have already presupposed that the Bible can't possibly be true and have completely disregarded the fact that it may in fact be true. And what have you in it's place to use as your standard for truth? I have a standard of truth that is "Whatever God says = absolute truth".

Tom62, What is your standard for truth?

I am going to assume that you were just joking/trying to prove a point by saying:

An absolute truth means for me that everyone in the whole universe, universally agree that something is 100% true.

to which I responded:

I don't agree with this statement and do not think that it is 100% true therefore you can never have 100% of the world universally agree with you on this statement therefore by your very own standard of truth your statement is false.

So in all seriousness, Tom62, What is your standard for truth?

[Joel25]

Hi McQ,

Ok, I hope that you stick around long enough to hear me out. Maybe we should go back to the very beginning as you seem to define "absolute truth" as some kind of lofty, ethereal idea that has been debated for centuries by philosophers and only the greatest of minds can truly grasp its significance. Maybe true in some respects, but let me attempt something and then I will ask a question or three and I would be curious to see how you respond.

A. Definition of truth: "the real state of things; fact; reality; an accepted statement or proposition."

Question #1 Do you agree with this definition of absolute truth?

B. Two opposing views on absolutes:
View One - There are no absolutes that define reality.  Everything is relative, and thus there is no actual reality.  There is ultimately no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative; right or wrong.
View Two - There are absolute realities, or standards, that define what is real and what is not.   Thus, actions can be deemed right or wrong based upon how they measure up against absolute standards.

Question #2 Are there absolutes or are there no absolutes (which view)?

C. Foundations:

Question #3 If you believe in absolutes then what is your basis for your belief that the absolute is in fact absolute?*

* Be careful of this question because it is trickier than it appears - you will answer this with some form of circular reasoning. (Hint: I would answer, "It is true because God said it was true" = a circular argument (God makes a claim and God verifies). You will most likely say some form of, "It is true because man has said it was true - we have observed and did experiments, and verified that what we have said is true" = also a circular argument (man makes a claim and man verifies)).

[Whitney]

Here is maybe one of the most important parts of anything I have said in these postings: "everyone has to use circular reasoning." Many don't realize that they are even doing so but it is true. I will explain: in order for man independently to state anything as true then man must state it as true and then verify it by his reason, intellect, knowledge - man verifying man - circular argument. What I have said is exactly the same type of circular argument (again, because every argument is circular at its highest level) EXCEPT for it is GOD making a claim and it is verified by GOD. Again, both are circular arguments all the same and both are verified by whoever it is that is making the claim - one circular argument is verified by man and another circular argument is verified by God Himself.

Your claim that the bible is the word of god is based off of your self proclaimed "truth" that god directly instructed the words of the bible from which you gain supposedly absolute truth.

Now how again is this not circular in the same way you claim verifying absolute truth without a supernatural higher power is circular?

If you are going to argue that we can't use our perception of reality as a basis for absolute truth then you cannot in turn argue that your perception of reality (that there is a god) is a basis for determining absolute truth.

Keep in mind that many of us were practicing Christians at some point or another....claims that god revealed himself to you and if we just try as instructed in the bible he will reveal himself to us as well doesn't do much to convince us of anything.

[Whitney]

I'm sure we can supply you with valid proof that the bible doesn't match your own criteria of "absolute" truth.

By all means proceed with your valid proof that the Bible is not true.

I just picked one of many contradictions...picking God repenting because I feel it is a clear contradition....all it takes is one false statement according to your standards:

Does god repent or not?  verses which say he does cannot be true if others say he doesn't:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/c ... epent.html

[McQ]

Hi McQ,

Ok, I hope that you stick around long enough to hear me out. Maybe we should go back to the very beginning as you seem to define "absolute truth" as some kind of lofty, ethereal idea that has been debated for centuries by philosophers and only the greatest of minds can truly grasp its significance. Maybe true in some respects, but let me attempt something and then I will ask a question or three and I would be curious to see how you respond.

Oh boy, here we go.....again. You are just going to have to be a good christian and forgive my eye-rolling and sighing, Joel. You have no idea how many times I've gone round and round BOTH as a christian and as a non-christian with this. I answer you only out of courtesy to your direct questions and because you are attempting to frame the debate by using false absolutes. I repeat that I am not interested in a prolonged debate. Others are perfectly willing to do that. This just doesn't interest me that much.

And yes, the idea of absolute truth has been debated by the greatest philosophers for thousand of years, and it is difficult to grasp. However you made the first of your straw men statements by trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. I did not say or imply that only the greatest minds can grasp its significance. However, a lot of smarter people than you and I have gone over this and it takes more than a cursory knowledge of this to debate it properly.

A. Definition of truth: "the real state of things; fact; reality; an accepted statement or proposition."

Question #1 Do you agree with this definition of absolute truth?

No, Joel, because as I already stated, I don't believe in absolute truth, especially that type of absolute truth based on a mythical creator.

B. Two opposing views on absolutes:
View One - There are no absolutes that define reality.  Everything is relative, and thus there is no actual reality.  There is ultimately no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative; right or wrong.

This is one of your false absolutes. It does not follow that there is no actual reality if there are no absolutes. False statement, therefore not needing an answer. Positive and negative actions, right and wrong can adequately be decided upon by humans in a self-correcting manner. There does not need to be an absolute authority for any of this. That is a concept that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions created.

View Two - There are absolute realities, or standards, that define what is real and what is not.   Thus, actions can be deemed right or wrong based upon how they measure up against absolute standards.

Question #2 Are there absolutes or are there no absolutes (which view)?

Now it seems you are trying to mix science and religion here. What is reality to someone who is defining life vis-a-vis a god? You are also using, to borrow your phrase, an absolute. You are attempting to create a question that has only two possible answers. As is the case in so many discussions, there are more than "two sides" to many issues. In this case there are more than just the two propositions that you pose. It's like me asking you if you enjoy murdering children or not. Which one is it?

C. Foundations:

Question #3 If you believe in absolutes then what is your basis for your belief that the absolute is in fact absolute?*

I don't believe in the type of absolutes you are trying to pigeonhole everyone here into accepting. Sorry.

* Be careful of this question because it is trickier than it appears - you will answer this with some form of circular reasoning. (Hint: I would answer, "It is true because God said it was true" = a circular argument (God makes a claim and God verifies). You will most likely say some form of, "It is true because man has said it was true - we have observed and did experiments, and verified that what we have said is true" = also a circular argument (man makes a claim and man verifies)).

Just because you believe in a god doesn't make circular reasoning right for the bible. In fact, it makes it even more dishonest and wrong. christians say they believe in the bible and god because the bible says so. And because the bible says it is infallible then it must be true.  This is the poorest of reasons to believe anything.

The whole problem with christians like yourself is that you refuse to start from a neutral position and follow the evidence. However, at the same time, you accuse non-believers of starting with the idea that there is no god or gods. That is not necessarily true. Some people might, but they are just as mistaken as the ones who start with the assumption that there is a god. The proper starting point is neutrality and then following where the evidence leads. It really is that simple, but most fundamental religious folks just don't want to do it.

Good luck with your debate. All I can encourage you to do is to start being more intellectually honest with yourself, and also to try very hard not to make any more straw man arguments or start any impossible to answer what if.

[Joel25]

Hi McQ,

No, Joel, because as I already stated, I don't believe in absolute truth, especially that type of absolute truth based on a mythical creator.

I am somewhat flabbergasted that you would say that. If what you just said is true (that there are no absolutes) then using your very logic your own statement is not true... (because to say that there are no absolutes is to in fact make an absolute statement). I would have thought that in your 15 years of wrestling with this that you would have found a way out of this conundrum. How do you reconcile this?

(I am stealing the following from HERE)

PROOF THAT ABSOLUTES MUST EXIST


The denial of absolute truth has more than a few serious logical problems. If we will "follow the train of thought to the station" we will find that it "derails."


Problem #1  -- Self-Contradiction. Those who would insist that there are NO absolutes are believing in an absolute. They are absolutely sure that there is nothing that is absolute. Such a philosophy is self-defeating and self-contradictory.  Their statement of belief is, in itself, evidence against their belief!


Problem #2  --  Limited Knowledge. A human being, with a limited and finite mind, cannot make absolute negative statements. You can't say: "There are no dogs in Alaska" unless you have absolute knowledge of Alaska...every home, cave, etc. You would be forced to say: "With the knowledge I have now and the small evidence I have observed, I don't think there are any dogs in Alaska." (On the flip side, making an absolute positive statement is possible, because if we see dogs in Alaska, we could make the absolute statement "There are dogs in Alaska.")  Likewise, a finite human cannot make the statement: "There is no God" (although many try), because they would have to have absolute knowledge of the entire Universe from beginning to end in order to know that. The best one could really do would be to say: "With the limited knowledge I have, I don't believe that there is a God." The same logic applies to the statement people make "There are no absolutes."


Problem #3  --  The Real World.  Let us, for a moment, suppose that everything really is relative (no standards of any kind). That would mean that everybody does what they think is right--setting their own rules for life. The problem comes when one person's rules clash with another's. What if one person decides that killing is a noble thing to do, and so attempts to kill everyone in sight? If things are relative, then killing is just as right as not killing. Cruelty is equal to non-cruelty.  Would you have a problem with that?  Of course, most of us would.


When locked in the chambers of philosophy, we can kick around wild ideas about nothing really existing, or nothing being absolute.  But the real world greets us when we emerge from that chamber--a world full of life and death, suffering and pleasure, evil and good.  If there is no standard of truth in the Universe, then one can never be sure of anything. It is all an accident. We would be free to do as we please--rape, murder, steal, lie, cheat, etc. Who is to say that those things are wrong? A world without absolutes would be horrible indeed!



So, the other possibility--that there is indeed absolute truth in the Universe, can be our only other option. There must be a "reality" somewhere, that defines what is and what is not, what is right and what is wrong.  In order for there to be absolute truth, there must be an authority that establishes that truth. You cannot have a law without a lawgiver. You cannot have a design without a designer

[Joel25]

Hi laetusatheos,

Your claim that the bible is the word of god is based off of your self proclaimed "truth" that god directly instructed the words of the bible from which you gain supposedly absolute truth.

Now how again is this not circular in the same way you claim verifying absolute truth without a supernatural higher power is circular?

It's not. Remember, I said that all reasoning is circular at its highest level including both "man making a claim and man verifying the claim (circular)" and "God making a claim and God verifying the claim (circular)". They are both circular. You agree with this, correct (that they are both circular)?

My only point in bringing up the circular argument issue is that some people will try and say that they are somehow holding themselves to the highest standard by investigating something, making a claim, and then verifying that it is true while it is still a circular argument all the same as it is me saying that I believe something to be true solely because God said it is true. Both positions involve faith because true logic cant come into play at the highest level when both are circular arguments. Do you see this?