Happy Atheist Forum

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?

Quote from: "JustInterested"Is there someone or something out there that can provide an aswer or holds the answer for everything?

Ayn Rand.

Quote from: "JustInterested"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.

Quote from: "JustInterested"Is there someone or something out there that can provide an aswer or holds the answer for everything?

What is an 'answer for everything'?

Quote from: "JustInterested"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

Quote from: "JustInterested"Will science be able to prove everything eventually?

Possibly.

Quote from: "JustInterested"Could we even exist if we knew everything?

Of course.

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.

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

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.

Quote from: "Tom62"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:

QuoteSeems 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?

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.

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.

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...

QuoteWhat 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.

pjkeeley, kudos, your answer is consummate.

:wink: Thanks SteveS.

What the hell are puffalumps?

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"What the hell are puffalumps?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fisher-price.com%2Fus%2Fimg%2Fproduct_shots%2Fk5322_b_1.jpg&hash=cd8c19d895d55624b4f7957526285ad473a00360)

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

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

Haha!  I agree...

QuoteIt 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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Joel25"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?

Quote from: "Joel25"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.

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

QuoteI'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.  

QuoteWhat 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.

QuoteIs 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.

QuoteWhat 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.

QuoteWe 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.

QuoteWhat 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?

QuoteThat'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).

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

QuoteI 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) ?

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.

Hi McQ,

QuoteIf 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).

QuoteThen, 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.

Quote from: "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.

QuoteSo 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".

QuoteSorry 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

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.

QuoteInteresting 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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=17&version=9)
"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

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?

Quote from: "Joel25"

QuoteInteresting 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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=17&version=9)
"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.

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.

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

QuoteI 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.

QuoteWhy 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:

QuoteYour 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.

QuoteAn 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.  :)

Quote from: "Joel25"

QuoteAn 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:

Quote...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.

QuoteI'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:

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

QuoteI 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.

QuoteI 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".

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.

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.

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

QuoteBy 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:

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

to which I responded:

QuoteI 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?

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)).

Quote from: "Joel25"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.

Quote from: "Joel25"

QuoteI'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 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/repent.html)

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Joel25"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.

Quote from: "Joel25"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.

Quote from: "Joel25"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?

Quote from: "Joel25"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.

Quote from: "Joel25"* 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.

Hi McQ,

QuoteNo, 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 (http://www.absolutetruth.net/truth/))

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

Hi laetusatheos,

QuoteYour 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?

QuoteI 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 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/repent.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 (http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_god_change_his_mind) and HERE (http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20030622.htm))

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

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

QuoteUnsound 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?

Quote from: "Joel25"Hi McQ,

QuoteNo, 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..."

Quote from: "Joel25"(I am stealing the following from HERE (http://www.absolutetruth.net/truth/))

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

Quote from: "Joel25"Hi laetusatheos,

QuoteYour 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.

Quote from: "Joel25"

QuoteI 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 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/repent.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 (http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_god_change_his_mind) and HERE (http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20030622.htm))

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.

Hi Laetusatheos,

Sorry for the delayed response.

QuoteI 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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=11&verse=3&version=9&context=verse)
"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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=11&verse=6&version=9&context=verse)

*** 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.

QuoteCircular 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.

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.

QuoteThe 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 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/angle.asp)).

QuoteCircular 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."

QuoteThe 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".

QuoteAccording 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.

Quotethe 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.

QuoteYou 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.

Quoteif 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."

QuoteSo 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".

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!

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

Quote from: "JustInterested"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.   :) )

QuoteI 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteSo 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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteIf 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.   :lol:   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.

QuoteIf 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.

QuoteI 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.   :lol:

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"?

 :lol: 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".

Quote from: "JustInterested"...in favor or disgust about Hannah Montana

I have nothing to say about Billy Ray Cyrus' daughter until she's legal... in whatever state or country she's in.

Quote from: "pjkeeley"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?

Humans have limited minds, therefor there is no God? That is asinine.

Hatmanfan - I think you are misreading pjkeeley's statement.  Considering the entirety of this thread's context, I take it that the atheists in this thread were arguing the precise opposite of your statement: "humans have limited minds, therefore there must be a god" is the "asinine" part.

I take pj's paragraph above to be ruling out a particular type of being.  In other words, we maybe can't take it as an argument that there could not be any god, but we can take it as an argument that if there is a god then that god could not have the listed qualities --- there cannot be this particular type of god.

QuoteHumans have limited minds, therefor there is no God? That is asinine.

No, what's asinine is deliberately misrepresenting my argument. This discussion is about absolute truth. I wasn't referring to God at all. Does the word God appear in the section you quoted? It doesn't because I was talking about human beings, and why absolute truth doesn't matter because, as you put it, we have 'limited minds'.

The point I was trying to make was that a person can never make sense of reality objectively, because in order to do so she must be able to think, and to think she must use language. Language has limitations. On top of that, by the time she is able to use and make sense of language, she has already developed preconceived notions about reality. Not to mention genetic predispositions. But could a hypthetical person exist within reality but without these limitations? I don't believe so, because how could such a person think? I'm not saying that God doesn't exist, at least not in this discussion, because it's not relevent. Perhaps God, since he is outside of reality and therefore not subject to it, has another way of perceiving reality that doesn't involve thought or language. I don't know or care particularly much about the theology on this. What I'm saying is that ordinary mortal beings within what we call reality are necessarily comprehending said reality subjectively. 'Absolute truth' might therefore be inaccessible and it is thus arguably unimportant to us whether it exists or not.

I should have used 'person' instead of 'being', to emphasise that I was talking about a being within and subject to the constraints of reality.

Hey pj - forgive me, I think I misrepresented your argument as well.  Shoulda kept my mouth shut and let you handle this --- but it bugged me so I couldn't help responding.  Plus I'm blabby by nature  :?  

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I was talking about a being within and subject to the constraints of reality.

A sensible limitation.....  :wink:

Struck a nerve did I pj? I really am sorry if I misunderstood or misrepresented your piont; but you said:

Quote from: "pjkeeley"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 while you didn't mention God specifically by name, if I understand you, you described the impossibility of the God of the bible, simply because you cannot understand how anyone could be that way. Did I misuderstand? Ultimately what you said was that we can never know if there may be a god or gods - except for the God of the bible; whom you have the enlightenment to merely speak into non-existence. If you don't have the God of the bible than you do not have God.

Wow... Hitmanfan, you sure do have great selective reading skills... that takes a tremendous talent to read only what you want to see, not what is actually there.

PJ said:

Quote from: "pjkeeley"I should have used 'person' instead of 'being', to emphasise that I was talking about a being within and subject to the constraints of reality.
(emphasis added)

So your entire response is irrelevant because you are choosing to misread the intent to mean God, not humans.  PJ made it abundantly clear you misrepresented what was said.

"The world don't move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right to you may not be right for some." - DIFF'RENT STROKES theme song.

Everybody has truths, but there is no absolute truth. Only facts are indisputable.

As the hubby says all the time:

"You can have your own truth, but you cannot have your own facts."

Christians don't seem to understand that.  They believe everything out of their mouths is fact.

I couldn't agree more. Everywhere today we see a blurring between what is truth and what is fact. Even in the news.

This quetion is a bit broad, but there is a specific corner of it that I have a though on:

I think all cosmologists, deep down, want to be the one who discovers some universal equation, a formula that if every variable in a given moment is entered into will forsee every event thereafter.  Indeed, I believe this Cartesian equation exists, but the variables are far to many for it to ever be of use to us.

1 + 1= 2??  I seriously doubt this would still hold up at the singularity of a black hole.   :bs:

The only absolute truth I am aware of is the absolute truth of the laws of the universe. But of course this was no doubt a question about morality. I'm always mystified as to why someone thinks that because someone doesn't believe in a god, that such a person is somehow without a moral compass.

I don't need to put my hand on a hot stove more than once to know that it's a bad thing. Is it an absolute bad thing? Hell if I know, but I know I don't like pain, and that's good enough for me. I know that when something makes me feel bad or hurts me, I know that I don't want it to happen again. I don't really give a shit why I believe what I do, I just do. Whether or not something is absolutely right or wrong is not important to me. I'm just trying to enjoy my life the best I can and not hurt anyone along the way. I keep my own counsel on why and how I do that.

And just why is it that invoking a god makes truth somehow absolute? Such a being might have the power to enforce such absolute truth, but it doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

I agree with everything you say except that the laws of the universe are fact based and not just truth. I can't just decide that I don't agree with gravity.

The example of putting your hand on the stove being painful isn't an absolute truth either. For someone who has no feeling in their hands, burning them would not be painful at all. The not stove burning your hands is the part that is a fact. The reaction is subjective.

Pardon me just jumping in the middle of this debate. Absolut truth  cannot be applied to our universe since our Universe is dynamic and not static there is no one ultimate answer. Here is when Quantum theory come in play. While on a smaller scal such as 2+2=4 the we can be sure this is 100% true on large scale we are going to face more and more question which will not bring us closer to the truth but put us back at zero.

Let say there is a God and he knows the Absolute truth, in this case we will never know because if we will indeed would know absolutly there is God than we would need the same knowledge and understand as God does in order to be capable to understand God and know it absolulty exist.

however in the mid of all this the question is "do you really want to know the truth? "

Thru the whole history of men kind it has been proven that truth is not alwyas welcomed, since it is very difficult to grasp the idea and in many way it can been even hurtful human choses to create a alternative truth and call it example heaven.

Personally I usualy stay away from such debate, becasue if you really get into it the result is always the same, Insanity ! on both side !

With all the respect to our theist members, you will never know the absolut truth. Since God is in full control of your mind you are depended of his power. simply said if any men is in need of Moses to tell him stealing is wrong he is not even close to know the turth. Is just like my dog, when he does something wrong  and he eventulay doesn't do it is not becasue he knews why is it worng because I have teached him not to do it. but again the God of Christianity and bible doesn't have the absolute turth since he didn't know the earth was round.