Do you believe in absolute truth?

[Joel25]

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

That is a good link because it illustrates this seeming contradiction very thoroughly with Scripture verses (also because it has already linked to two different sites that offer the Christian rebuttals to this seeming contradiction I will post the two links HERE and HERE)

[Tom62]

This discussion doesn't bring us any further, I'm out of here.

[pjkeeley]

Joel25, you obviously don't know what a circular argument is. Here is a definition:

Unsound reasoning in which it is argued both that A is the case on the grounds that B is the case and that B is the case on the grounds that A is the case.

An example of this is if I were to say "I like chocolate because it is nice". You then ask me why chocolate is nice, and I shrug and say "because I like it". An obvious circular argument.

Now what if I were to carry out research into the chemical properties of chocolate and conduct experiments on its effect on the human brain? Then if I say "I like chocolate because it is nice" and you ask why chocolate is nice, I could respond by explaining that chocolate is nice because it produces certain neurochemical responses in humans that are universally considered nice. THIS IS NOT A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.

Do you understand the difference? If so, please stop using the term 'circular argument', because it is a philosophical term with an operative meaning.

Oh, and by the way, the reason I don't care what absolute truth is, or whether or not it even exists, is because I consider it unimportant. Honestly, what is wrong with a consensus version of the truth? In the past we believed that the earth was the centre of the universe. Then we discovered that the earth revolves around the sun, and we took the sun to be the centre of the universe. Then we discovered that in fact the sun is part of a larger galaxy, and that that galaxy is part of a larger universe. Each time we 'finite' men use our 'fallible' faculties such as reason, we get a more accurate picture of reality. Why not call this 'truth'? What does it matter if it can never be called 'absolute'?

And finally: claiming that the Bible is the source of absolute truth simply based on a "what if it's true?" scenario is moronic. What if it isn't? Then you are wrong. Better to be sceptical about its truth value, no?

[McQ]

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?

Flabbergast away, Joel. there is no conundrum. You haven't read what I wrote carefully, nor are you willing to try and see this from the point of view other than the limited one you've created for yourself. Saying I don't believe in the absolute truth as you are trying to describe it or in the ideal absolute truth does not negate reality. The rest of what you typed all falls away after that. Stop attempting to construct artifices that support impossible points of view and for Pete's sake, stop using straw men!

The site you referenced is a fundamentalist christian site, which is only trying to do the same thing you're doing. It is trying to say that there must be absolute truth based on the god of the bible. It even tries to blame belief in Evolution as a reason for rejecting god and therefore, absolute truth.

Everything you say is based on "either/or" arguments that have no basis in anything but one god....who doesn't exist in the first place. You don't even try to do what you want others to do, and that is, start from a position that says "What if?" Like what if your supposed god doesn't exist? Or suppose the he might not? If you can't do that, then all you are doing here is evangelizing.

As my friend HAL said, "...This conversation can serve no purpose any more..."

(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

[Whitney]

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?

I don't accept your definition of a circular argument...or at least not what I understand your definition to be from what yousaid.  Would you mind providing the definition of "circular argument" for us?  You don't seem to be using the commonly accepted philosophical definition of the term.This is why I tried to phrase my question in relation to your understanding of circular reasoning.

[Whitney]

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

That is a good link because it illustrates this seeming contradiction very thoroughly with Scripture verses (also because it has already linked to two different sites that offer the Christian rebuttals to this seeming contradiction I will post the two links HERE and HERE)

I have better things to do so I only read the first link.  For now I'll just say the explaination sounds like a cop out.  I think to discuss this further at this juncture would take away from the topic at hand.  If you like, we can attack issues of Biblical contradiction and truth at a later date.

[Joel25]

Hi Laetusatheos,

Sorry for the delayed response.

I don't accept your definition of a circular argument...or at least not what I understand your definition to be from what you said. Would you mind providing the definition of "circular argument" for us?

I think I have this definition right - I am using the definition of circular argument as, "Unsound reasoning in which it is argued both that A is the case on the grounds that B is the case and that B is the case on the grounds that A is the case." (Similar to "begging the question").

Circular Argument Example #1: "Truth comes from God because it says so in the Bible and the Bible is true because God wrote it."

Circular Argument Example #2: "Truth comes from man because man's logic/reasoning/experiments say so and man's logic/reasoning/experiments are true because man conducted them."

The easiest way for me to respond to some of the others posts is to just simply say that I think that some are accusing me of trying to logically prove that there is a God and that that God is the God of the Bible and that we should believe in Him because of logically undeniable truth. This is not the case.* I do believe that there is strong proof that there is a God because of nature, His working in my life, and other things that God has chosen to reveal to us but it still involves faith (as the Bible itself claims**). I never have denied this need for faith and have mentioned this in previous posts. My only goal is to show that we all have to use faith in something in all of our underlying assumptions: we can choose to put our faith in God*** or put our faith in ourselves as being capable enough to understand and measure truth in the universe.


*When I say that I am not making a logical argument I am saying that I cannot prove with empirical evidence that God created the universe (although definitely plausible) because no one else was there just as no one else can prove with empirical evidence how the universe began with the "Big Bang" theory or any other theory.

**"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11: 3
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6

*** You will notice that again this is not a strictly logical argument but instead a call for faith because you could make this same argument for the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" - although if the assumption is that there is a God then I don't think that too many people would truly believe that the God that is assumed is the FSM.

[pjkeeley]

Circular Argument Example #2: "Truth comes from man because man's logic/reasoning/experiments say so and man's logic/reasoning/experiments are true because man conducted them."

The only problem with this example is that, while it does demonstrate a circular argument, it is also a straw man. Atheists don't claim that "man's logic/reasoning/experiments" are true because man conducted them. They would be true regardless. The foundation of reason lies in the assumption that there are such things as constants and immutable laws. You rely on the same assumption I assume, otherwise you're probably tightly clutching your desk right now so as not to float away when gravity gets tired. Empirical evidence, whether conducted by men in lab coats or by trained chimps, would be true no matter who was around to observe it.

So while your straw man may indeed be a circular argument, our argument properly represented is not. It does not claim that A is the case on the grounds that B is the case and B is the case on the grounds that A is the case.

[Whitney]

I'll let Pj's reply serve as my reply (just in case you were waiting for me to respond).  

I'm pretty drained from work being so hetic right now.

[Joel25]

The foundation of reason lies in the assumption that there are such things as constants and immutable laws.

Excellent! You said it! This is the very point that I am trying to highlight. According to the fundamentals of basic logic, all belief systems start with axioms, which by definition are accepted to be true without proof. A Christian axiom is, as I explained in earlier posts, that whatever God says is truth. The difference between the Christian’s axioms and the atheist’s is that the atheist’s axioms are ultimately self-refutingâ€"perhaps the greatest form of irrationality is to believe in rationality when that rationality was supposedly ultimately produced by non-rational random combinations of chemicals (some of this was taken from the following URL, also see C.S. Lewis' . Accidental Angle).

Circular Argument Example #2: "Truth comes from man because man's logic/reasoning/experiments say so and man's logic/reasoning/experiments are true because man conducted them."

The only problem with this example is that, while it does demonstrate a circular argument, it is also a straw man. Atheists don't claim that "man's logic/reasoning/experiments" are true because man conducted them. They would be true regardless.

You are right, I should have said "because man proved them to be true" and not "because man conducted them". This is still a circular argument and not a straw man (correct me if I am misrepresenting). In other words, if there are certain immutable laws then man can never be totally certain about whether those observed laws are indeed immutable because of man's inherent limitedness (i.e. unable to observe everything at once at all times in all dimensions - in fact to do this man would have to have qualities approaching the divine!). So if you reject the existence of a divine Entity/Force/Thing then you have no grounds upon which to insist on "constants" and "immutable laws".

[pjkeeley]

According to the fundamentals of basic logic, all belief systems start with axioms, which by definition are accepted to be true without proof.

Interesting you say this, and I will come back to it in a moment.

the atheist's axioms are ultimately self-refuting—perhaps the greatest form of irrationality is to believe in rationality when that rationality was supposedly ultimately produced by non-rational random combinations of chemicals

We believe in rationality. We do not believe that rationality was "produced by non-rational random combinations of chemicals". That doesn't make sense. Logic is not made of chemicals. It's not made of anything. It's an abstract noun.

You are right, I should have said "because man proved them to be true" and not "because man conducted them". This is still a circular argument and not a straw man (correct me if I am misrepresenting).

It's still a straw man. Represented as a circular argument in the form "A because B, B because A", it would read like this:

"Truth comes from man because man's experiments can be proven to be true, man's experiments can be proven true because truth comes from man."

But this is not what atheists assert. We do not claim that truth "comes from man". Truth is in nature, and is what we arrive at through empirical reasoning.

if there are certain immutable laws then man can never be totally certain about whether those observed laws are indeed immutable because of man's inherent limitedness (i.e. unable to observe everything at once at all times in all dimensions - in fact to do this man would have to have qualities approaching the divine!).

Whether or not we can be certain of it is irrelevent. We accept that natural laws are immutable as an axiom. Remember what you said about axioms? They are "accepted to be true without proof."

So if you reject the existence of a divine Entity/Force/Thing then you have no grounds upon which to insist on "constants" and "immutable laws".

Not at all. I don't know why there are natural laws, but it certainly does not logically follow that they come from the "devine".

[rlrose328]

Just wanted to say that I'm LOVING this discussion!  I'm completely incapable of participating... while I understand it all, I just can't put any of it into words.  But this is WHY I love thes forum.  You all are being so very polite and rarely condescending, on EITHER side.  Thank you so much for this line of thought!

[JustInterested]

All this debating and not a single word spoken in favor or disgust about Hannah Montana... unbelievable!

rlrose,

Admitting that you are incapable of joining the discussion is hilarious... I doubt thats true by the way.

This thread has come a long way or at least has made a few laps since my grand and highly original inquiry about absolute truth.

I quess the original question was simply a curious one.  If you don't believe in an all-knowing divine creature, then what do you think about truth. Here is the problem I see.

I think we can all agree that it is a certainty that not every human being can be completely right. I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead.  You don't believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead.  One of us is wrong.  Since everyone is wrong to some degree it doesnt make any sense to believe that absolute truth lies within the individual. Eventually I'm going to be wrong and it will be proven.

So now if absolute truth exists, where do we find it if its not within us and its not held by a higher being?  If you don't think it matters, then it doesnt matter to you if youre right or wrong or if what you say or do is true or false.  And if that doesnt matter to you then i dont see how you can even make any kind of suggestion whatsoever about anything.  How could you function in this manner?

If you believe absolute truth exists, but yet think we humans are unable to recognize it then we are still left living a life not capable of knowing right from wrong when right and wrong exists.  What a horrible thought when considering human interaction.

If you believe we are capable of finding absolute truth outside of self and outside of God, then please let me know how to do that.

If you don't believe in absolute truth, then by default you are admitting that anything you do or say is meaningless.  

I would have to think that deep down every human being wants to know the answers.  We all want to be right in every area and yet we all understand that we are all going to be wrong in atleast one of these areas.  So now the question becomes how do we decide when we are right or when we are wrong.  Certainly this judjement cant be made by another human being.  How do we know that theyre right and im wrong?  Therefore absolute truth must exist and we as humans must be able to recognize the truth.  And as far as I can tell the only way to achieve this is to put my faith in a Perfect, All-knowing God who gives the gift of the Holy Spirt to anyone who professes faith Jesus Christ.

Anyways, while I'm disappointed in the lack of puffalump talk, I do appreciate you guys letting us come on here and share our thoughts and take in yours.  

Holla at your shorty for me

[rlrose328]

rlrose,

Admitting that you are incapable of joining the discussion is hilarious... I doubt thats true by the way.

I'm glad I could give you a giggle.   )

I quess the original question was simply a curious one.  If you don't believe in an all-knowing divine creature, then what do you think about truth.

I believe in truth and I don't believe you have to believe in a divine being in order to know what truth is (as opposed to non-truth).  If you're talking about absolute truth, I don't think any of us will ever know absolute truth.  It's impossible, regardless of supernatural beings.

I think we can all agree that it is a certainty that not every human being can be completely right. I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead.  You don't believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead.  One of us is wrong.  Since everyone is wrong to some degree it doesnt make any sense to believe that absolute truth lies within the individual. Eventually I'm going to be wrong and it will be proven.

Yes, one of us is wrong... but we cannot know who is wrong while we are here on this earth.  And because I don't believe there is an afterlife and you do, then one of us is wrong there.  If I'm right, NO ONE will ever know the absolute truth of the universe because there is nothing after death... no heaven, no god, nothing.

So now if absolute truth exists, where do we find it if its not within us and its not held by a higher being?  If you don't think it matters, then it doesnt matter to you if youre right or wrong or if what you say or do is true or false.  And if that doesnt matter to you then i dont see how you can even make any kind of suggestion whatsoever about anything.  How could you function in this manner?

There's a big difference between absolute truth in the universe... the truths that we all hold for gods and the bigger picture of life... and whether I tell lies on a daily basis.  No one will ever know absolute truth AND be able to communicate it to anyone else because that's not for us to know.  BUT... I do believe we are all born with the knowledge of right (truth) and wrong (lies), and it is nurtured by our parents or other caregivers.  Granted, it seems like many people these days are sorely lacking that nurturing, but that's irrelevant to this conversation.

Truth matters a great deal to me... I'm sure it does to the majority of humans on this earth.  The daily truth/lies kind of truth.  The universe/life kind of truth is irrelevant to most people on earth because they have lives that they are leading and why bother worrying about something that doesn't matter... really... it doesn't matter.

If you believe absolute truth exists, but yet think we humans are unable to recognize it then we are still left living a life not capable of knowing right from wrong when right and wrong exists.  

How do you figure?  I don't know what the absolute truth is... or if there even IS an absolute truth.  But that doesn't make my life any less worth living and it doesn't mean I don't know right from wrong.

If you believe we are capable of finding absolute truth outside of self and outside of God, then please let me know how to do that.

Sorry... this is way more philosophical than I really want to get... it's late and wow, I should have just kept my mouth shut.     I do believe we are capable of knowing (and DO know) right from wrong without the existence of a divine being.  People have known right from wrong for a LONG long time, before god was created... and the more advanced we become, we have refined our knowledge of right and wrong in the form of laws.

If you don't believe in absolute truth, then by default you are admitting that anything you do or say is meaningless.  

Again, how do you figure?  This is life... what I say and do is meaningful to me regardless if I know or believe in absolute truth or a god/gods.

I would have to think that deep down every human being wants to know the answers.  We all want to be right in every area and yet we all understand that we are all going to be wrong in atleast one of these areas.  So now the question becomes how do we decide when we are right or when we are wrong.  Certainly this judjement cant be made by another human being.  How do we know that theyre right and im wrong?  Therefore absolute truth must exist and we as humans must be able to recognize the truth.  And as far as I can tell the only way to achieve this is to put my faith in a Perfect, All-knowing God who gives the gift of the Holy Spirt to anyone who professes faith Jesus Christ.

I'd love to know all the answers... but I'm okay with the fact that I'll NEVER know all the answers.  I'll never know (know as in while I'm alive) if there is or isn't a god for sure... I'll never know if there's a heaven or hell.  I have to trust the information I have as I understand it.

Bottom line for me... why does it matter if there's an absolute truth or not?   I know it was your question, but that's my bottom line answer.  It just flat out doesn't matter to me.  I've got a life to live and issues to address in a real life and these issues have little or nothing to do with there being an absolute truth.

I don't believe there's a god or gods who have had anything to do with this world or its peoples.  That's my truth.  Will I ever know if I'm right?  Nope... and I'm okay with that.

Wow... I KNEW I should have just stayed out of it.  

[SteveS]

Hi guys - sorry I've been absent so long, work has been nasty.

pjkeeley - I agree completely with your analysis of the circular argument claim.

Playing off of what you (pjkeeley) said, "truths do not come from man", I can experimentally demonstrate that "red is red" is true.  Whether a person is looking at red light, or a photo detector is measuring the wavelength of light, they agree.  This particular wavelength of light is measured the same by different things: machines, people, etc.  It is not true because man declares it true: it is an empirical substantiation of the law of identity.  "If its red, then its red" is true.  "If its not red, then its not red" is true.  This same sort of empirical demonstration is what allows me to trust that my senses are capable of perceiving reality, and that accepting logical axiomatic truths like the law of identity is a rational decision.

Joel25 - I think you'll find that the rational people make only very few genuine assumptions - like accepting that reality is real.  What I perceive pjkeeley as saying is that "we accept that reality is true".  That's it - that's all.  If its real, its true, if not, its false.  If something we believe doesn't "jive" with reality, we discard our belief as false.  Therefore, the ultimate source of absolute truth is simply "reality".  If we have limits in our ability to perceive reality (we do), then we simply have unknowns - what we believe to be real is uncertain to some degree, but this does not change what is real (and therefore what is true), and it does not guarantee that our beliefs are wrong - just that they are uncertain.

Returning to this "axiom" business, declaring the statement that "Whatever god says is true" as a "Christian Axiom" is giving my serious trouble.

You seem to acknowledge that you can't really get away with this and do require faith, but I want to lay down my thoughts on axioms and why I believe this particular one does not qualify.  Also why I don't believe you must defend logical axioms as "faith based".

Logical axiomatic truths are not true simply because we declare them to be so.  In other words, nobody gets to just pick some belief, call it an axiom, and therefore be relieved of the burden of proof.  If this were the case, and playing off the FSM example, I could simply say "I'm a pirate, so whatever the FSM says is true, and I accept this axiomatically, so my deductions are all logically sound".  Right?  This is clearly absurd, because an axiomatic truth must be something that you accept because you have no choice, that is self-evident, that is not built on underlying assumptions that can be logically challenged.  An axiom should be the ultimate underlying assumption - the point at which you can no longer regress.  Axioms are not derived, and they do not have to be believed based on faith.  Something that is self-evident does not require faith.

Okay, so the basic rules of logic are accepted axiomatically because they are self-evident, and they are required to give meaning to anything.  How can I discuss a concept with you without the "law of identity" (A is A, not-A is not-A)?  If I say an apple is red, but "apple" could mean anything, and "red" could mean anything, and "is" could mean anything (think Bill Clinton, "sexual relations", :wink: ), then what are we even saying?  Nothing at all - we can't make any sense at all.  We must accept the "law of identity", and through our experience with reality, we can readily see that the law of identity is consistent with reality - the truth of the statement is self-evident.  Furthermore, to argue against the law of identity you would have to use the law of identity, or your words would have no meaning and you would be unable to construct an argument.  You cannot first assume something and then use it to prove the assumption is wrong, because if the assumption is wrong then so is the derived argument.  This is another nice "check point" for having to accept something axiomatically.  

To demonstrate, can I argue "there is no god", logically, without assuming "whatever god says is true", without contradicting myself?  Of course.  Or even better, I can show that "whatever god says is true" is built on an underlying assumption that there exists a speaking god - so by asking for proof of this underlying, differing point, I can question the statement logically: this is clear demonstration that "whatever god says is true" is NOT axiomatic.  Can I question the law of identity without accepting that the law of identity is true?  No - I devolve into meaninglessness, so I must accept the law of identity axiomatically.  Hopefully I'm making this difference clear.

I do not have to accept the statement "whatever god says is true" on axiomatic grounds, it is not self-evident, and it is not required to accept this statement to argue a contrary case.  Just as a further illustration of the problem, suppose I were to say "An atheist axiom is that there is no god".  This is a serious problem, because now we have contradictory axioms.  How can we accept two contrary things axiomatically?  We can't - so, how would we settle the dispute?  How would one of us argue against the other that their axiom is more or less true than the other axiom?  What makes "whatever god says is true" more or less true, axiomatically, then "there is no god"?

  see how absurd this becomes - you'd have to say that two contradictory statements are both true self-evidently, which is akin to saying it's self-evident that true can be false and false can be true - ridiculous.

This is the problem, and this is why we must limit our assumptions and only accept things axiomatically that we must accept axiomatically - we can't just go about declaring any old axiom that we want to and then feel justified that we are behaving rationally - we would not be.  

If an atheist were ever to say "you must accept that there is no god because this is an axiomatic truth" I would be right beside you arguing against this statement - it is just as absurd as saying "you must accept that whatever god says is true because it is an axiomatic truth".