Absolute Truth

[cleft_for_me]

Hey!



What are everyone's thoughts on absolute truth??
Just curious...

 

[Salsa_1960]

How do you define it?

I believe there are definites taught in the Bible-- not to murder, not to steal, etc.
I also think that there are gray areas.

We're taught not to lie, yet the midwives lied about Moses' birth and were blessed for it. In the book of Joshua, Rahab lied about the spies being on the roof and yet is praised in the book of Hebrews for what she did. Those in World War II who lied about hiding Jews in their homes certainly weren't sinning.

 

[katherinethegreat]

its truth that is absolute....

 

[Volos]

Truth about what?



If absolute truth exists, how would we know that it is absolute?

 

[Volos]

I believe there are definites taught in the Bible-- not to murder, not to steal, etc.
I also think that there are gray areas.

What about self defense?



What about to save the life of another?



What about war?



What about capitol punishment?



It doesn’t sound that absolute.



Truthfully I have never run into a universal or absolute moral rule, I doubt they exist.

 

[drumairoxtinez]

Hello. I think that, essentially, we are possessive of the power to think and feel and act on our own parts, for our own happiness, and for that which we feel is right . . . which would mean, therefore, that there is no absolute truth.

How so? Well, let us take a gander, shall we? I refer to art to make my example: once, a man defecated on a crucifix in a jar and called it art. Whether or not it will ever be considered art on such a level as the Mona Lisa or Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel will be debatable forevermore, I am sure, but we will not look at what it is that makes this piece artful nor artless. Rather, we will look at what it is that makes the enrages populace so.

Let us say that to defecate on a crucifix means that we are commiting the ultimate renunciation of God and everything that is Him. But why does it mean that? Is it because it is artless? Is it because it is truly offensive?

More than likely, and truly enough, the answer is probably that, no, it is not truly offensive, nor is it truly artless. How so? The artist who created the piece thinks that it is art. Which, therefore, means that it is a piece of art (never mind what the general public thinks). This is not exactly truly offensive, either - because, in order to offend someone, we must go against their beliefs, their way of thinking - their morals.

And what is a moral, other than that which is determined right and that which is determined wrong? Who determines morals? Is it God? No, because, sadly and truly enough, God is not in many peoples' lives these days. Who is it, then?

None other than man, of course. Man and all his brethren decide what is and what is not moral - but if something was moral or immoral, then either everyone would or would not do it, or no one would ever listen to them. Because, if a moral is that which is right and wrong, and a person is an individual with a separate mind and personality than that of the man standing or sitting beside him, then only one person at a time can truly decide what is moral and immoral - as it applies to that one person.

For example: my mother tells me not to curse, because it's wrong. Maybe not immoral, but wrong. I go ahead and do it anyway, because I see no harm in it. I do not hurt another, I do not inflict pain, and I have no way of looking into people's minds, so how can I know if I offended someone? I'm certainly not offending myself.

For example: an artist is told all his life that he must respect and fear God, otherwise he is a sinner. Maybe not immoral, but a sinner. The artist goes and defecates on a crucifix, anyway, and then calls it art . . . but why would he do as much?

Well, first, we assume, based on the aforementioned issues, that morals do not exist, because one person at a time must determine them, and not one single group of men can determine them for all of humanity. Now, let us take a moment to imagine ourselves waking up in the morning and getting ready for the day. We go to work and eat our lunch, run errands and do all that other happy crappy. By the end of the day, we have taken so much from the world, and we have taken so much of what He has given us, then what is there left to do but pay back the debt incurred? We have eaten and consumed liquid, and we have driven and we have worked. We can pray and we can support envronmental groups for the use of our cars, but what is the ultimate penance - if not to give back that which has already been taken, and say thank you?

So let us say that, if morals do not exist, and if we are not arguing the artful- or artless-ness of this artist's work, then we may return to the orignial argument, which is a debate as to whether or not absolute truth exists.

Previously we stated that there was no such thing as absolute truth. Then we heard a whole lot about morals. How are they connected? If there is no way to create a set of morals for all of humanity, then it is impossible to set an absolute truth. Therefore, absolute truth does not exist, because, as with morals, only one person at a time may determine that which is truthful or -less.

Thank you.

This has been brought to you by Daniel Martinez, the author of How God Was Created, Artemis Grant, Paranoid Schizophrenic and Queen of the Undead. He lives in Tucson, Arizona with his fiance, Wendy. Check out his profile for his web site, where there's a whole lot more information about this young, Tucsonan novelist!

This is written as an argument; the author does not necessarily prescribe to the beliefs or manner of thinking decribed.

- Daniel Martinez,
Novelist

 

[Achichem]

It would be my conclusion that if one believes they have seen absolute truth then they have met absolute evil.

 

[Volos]

Aesthetics are not the equivalent of ethics

 

[chalice_thunder]

There is only ONE absolute truth:

God is.
YHWH.
Ego Eimi.
I AM.


All the rest is merely commentary.

 

[cleft_for_me]

Thanks for replying guys. Here's what I think too:

Absolute truth must exist. Total relativism is self-defeating. If I say we cannot know absolute truth, I am making an absolute statement. I am saying it is true that we cannot know absolute truth. It would mean that I can say God exists, and another can say God doesn't exist, and we'd both be right. I can say a bird is perching at my window, another can say it is not there. But both statements cannot be true. God either exists or He doesn't. The bird is either on the window or not. There are no other options. 2+2 always equals four.

Also, there has to be an objective moral law. Otherwise there would be incredible disagreement on morality in governing society. "Without a moral law, every person would be right, whatever he or she did...Contradictory views would both be right, since opposites could be equally correct. The moral law that does exist must be beyond individual persons and beyond humanity as a whole..."

So in different cultures, I think that although they manifest absolute moral commands differently, it is not these basic moral values that change.

*Source: Geisler, Norman. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics

 

[Blissman]

Hello. I think that, essentially, we are possessive of the power to think and feel and act on our own parts, for our own happiness, and for that which we feel is right . . . which would mean, therefore, that there is no absolute truth.

How so? Well, let us take a gander, shall we? I refer to art to make my example: once, a man defecated on a crucifix in a jar and called it art. Whether or not it will ever be considered art on such a level as the Mona Lisa or Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel will be debatable forevermore, I am sure, but we will not look at what it is that makes this piece artful nor artless. Rather, we will look at what it is that makes the enrages populace so.

Let us say that to defecate on a crucifix means that we are commiting the ultimate renunciation of God and everything that is Him. But why does it mean that? Is it because it is artless? Is it because it is truly offensive?

More than likely, and truly enough, the answer is probably that, no, it is not truly offensive, nor is it truly artless. How so? The artist who created the piece thinks that it is art. Which, therefore, means that it is a piece of art (never mind what the general public thinks). This is not exactly truly offensive, either - because, in order to offend someone, we must go against their beliefs, their way of thinking - their morals.

And what is a moral, other than that which is determined right and that which is determined wrong? Who determines morals? Is it God? No, because, sadly and truly enough, God is not in many peoples' lives these days. Who is it, then?

None other than man, of course. Man and all his brethren decide what is and what is not moral - but if something was moral or immoral, then either everyone would or would not do it, or no one would ever listen to them. Because, if a moral is that which is right and wrong, and a person is an individual with a separate mind and personality than that of the man standing or sitting beside him, then only one person at a time can truly decide what is moral and immoral - as it applies to that one person.

For example: my mother tells me not to curse, because it's wrong. Maybe not immoral, but wrong. I go ahead and do it anyway, because I see no harm in it. I do not hurt another, I do not inflict pain, and I have no way of looking into people's minds, so how can I know if I offended someone? I'm certainly not offending myself.

For example: an artist is told all his life that he must respect and fear God, otherwise he is a sinner. Maybe not immoral, but a sinner. The artist goes and defecates on a crucifix, anyway, and then calls it art . . . but why would he do as much?

Well, first, we assume, based on the aforementioned issues, that morals do not exist, because one person at a time must determine them, and not one single group of men can determine them for all of humanity. Now, let us take a moment to imagine ourselves waking up in the morning and getting ready for the day. We go to work and eat our lunch, run errands and do all that other happy crappy. By the end of the day, we have taken so much from the world, and we have taken so much of what He has given us, then what is there left to do but pay back the debt incurred? We have eaten and consumed liquid, and we have driven and we have worked. We can pray and we can support envronmental groups for the use of our cars, but what is the ultimate penance - if not to give back that which has already been taken, and say thank you?

So let us say that, if morals do not exist, and if we are not arguing the artful- or artless-ness of this artist's work, then we may return to the orignial argument, which is a debate as to whether or not absolute truth exists.

Previously we stated that there was no such thing as absolute truth. Then we heard a whole lot about morals. How are they connected? If there is no way to create a set of morals for all of humanity, then it is impossible to set an absolute truth. Therefore, absolute truth does not exist, because, as with morals, only one person at a time may determine that which is truthful or -less.

Thank you.

This has been brought to you by Daniel Martinez, the author of How God Was Created, Artemis Grant, Paranoid Schizophrenic and Queen of the Undead. He lives in Tucson, Arizona with his fiance, Wendy. Check out his profile for his web site, where there's a whole lot more information about this young, Tucsonan novelist!

This is written as an argument; the author does not necessarily prescribe to the beliefs or manner of thinking decribed.

- Daniel Martinez,
Novelist

Your position that (paraphrased) 'because people may or may not consider putting BM on a crucifix, or cursing to be immoral, should you have been told that it is immoral to do these, and someone commits said immoral acts', does not mean that morals do not exist. It proves that either you beileve an action to be immoral, or perhaps that you do not believe in the concept of morals. Both your judgements of how to act, (or lack thereof) on the consequences of your actions. Using morals as a test in reality which controls your life, does not mean that set of conventions which are 'morals' do not exist for everyone else. Like laws, do not have to be aware of them, recognise them, accept them, nor choose your behavoir for laws to exist. Note that morality is not the same thing as morals, nor is unlawful behavior the same as law. You can do what would be a violation of law without being punished (as in the case of an insane person killing someone. If that indivdiual is unable know what they are doing, or incapable differently, the person had not murdered anyone. Likewise, a person is not immoral if they were similarly insane). Many, (although not all) laws and morals are the same. I don't know of any similar moral which makes "J-Walking" illegal. There had been a public health law which made it illegal for someone to be hit by a bird dropping. The law claimed that it would save lives and reduce the spead of disease. The law DID save lives and reduce the spread of disease. It was an old, old, law which was written before "germs" were common knowlege. Mothers used to push their babies in strollers. Not wishing their little ones to be arrested, they had covered the heads of their infants (using the canope that came with every stroller), thus preventing bird droppings from hitting the faces of infants. Because such a law had saved lives, it would also be moral.

 

[Achichem]

Absolute truth must exist. Total relativism is self-defeating. If I say we cannot know absolute truth, I am making an absolute statement. I am saying it is true that we cannot know absolute truth. It would mean that I can say God exists, and another can say God doesn't exist, and we'd both be right. I can say a bird is perching at my window, another can say it is not there. But both statements cannot be true. God either exists or He doesn't. The bird is either on the window or not. There are no other options. 2+2 always equals four.

Very interesting, but I must disagree. In that you are limiting your view (references), IMO.

I would base this on the theory of relativity. That was a most fascinating discovery. For the fact that an object can be both 30cm and 40cm and not contradict the law of physics or measurement is almost unbelievable and it is the essence of that logic I pose against your assertion that both things can’t be true.

If however you argue that then is it true if the “frame of reference” is kept constant. Then I would assert, it is not absolute since that constant is relative not abosulute and all thing their in would then be vicariously non-absolute.

Also, there has to be an objective moral law. Otherwise there would be incredible disagreement on morality in governing society. "Without a moral law, every person would be right, whatever he or she did...

The assertion that truth is subjective and can not be absolute does not mean there is not “wrong or right” it only means that if wrong and right switched places, it would make no difference to the system. Actually it just states that wrong and right sit somewhere on a circle.

The merit of the argument is not to stop making standards on which tolerance can be based. It only states that the standard should be directly related to the situation. (i.e. Circler vs. linear)

Contradictory views would both be right, since opposites could be equally correct.

yes, that the point, the reverse is equal!

The moral law that does exist must be beyond individual persons and beyond humanity as a whole..."

on the contrary, the moral law must be alive and like other forms of life adapt and evolve in order to survive (to be of value, to serve purpose)!

 

[Volos]

Absolute truth must exist. Total relativism is self-defeating.

But then so is authoritarianism.



If one accepts that there are moral absolutes then the question becomes which moral absolutes are absolute? Turning to religion to identify these moral absolutes is no help, often these so called moral absolutes contradict each other not only from religion to religion but often with that religions frame work itself. Keeping with the issue of what religion to pick to decide what moral absolutes to accept as true we run directly into the problem of relativism. There is no reason to believe religion A over religion B, it all comes down to how one was raised and/or personal belief. If there is no reason to select religion A over religion B other than personal belief then the choice of religions is relative which as was pointed out is self defeating.

If I say we cannot know absolute truth, I am making an absolute statement.

I do not believe anyone is quite claiming that. I noted that IF absolute truth exists there would be no way we could know it. Note my absolute statement here depends upon absolutes existing.

I am saying it is true that we cannot know absolute truth. It would mean that I can say God exists, and another can say God doesn't exist, and we'd both be right.

The third possibility is that all Gods exist.

the fact remains that we do not know the nature of the Divine, we only believe.

I can say a bird is perching at my window, another can say it is not there. But both statements cannot be true. God either exists or He doesn't. The bird is either on the window or not. There are no other options. 2+2 always equals four.

This stumbles into the problem of truth verification. Fact statements are either immediately verifiable, contingently verifiable, pragmatic or esthetic. The belief in a God or Gods (or disbelief) is pragmatic in that we have no real evidence but the notion of a Divine being works and solves many abstract problems and provides a focus for our spiritual needs. We cannot directly or indirectly prove that your God or my Goddess exists in reality, we only believe.

Also, there has to be an objective moral law.

Why?

Otherwise there would be incredible disagreement on morality in governing society.

have you read a newspaper lately?

"Without a moral law, every person would be right, whatever he or she did...Contradictory views would both be right, since opposites could be equally correct. The moral law that does exist must be beyond individual persons and beyond humanity as a whole..."

actually relativism handles this problem rather well.



Note tahth I am not a relativist so please don’t accuse em of that. I am a contextualist. Moral actions are based on the context of the situation they take place in. what is moral in one situation may be immoral in another. It is easy to say thath it is immorla to lie to the police but if I were living in occupied Europe in the 1940’s and knew my neighbors wer hiding a Jewish family in the attic I would happy lie and in this situation lying would be perfectly moral.

So in different cultures, I think that although they manifest absolute moral commands differently, it is not these basic moral values that change.

the quesiton is, what morals are universal. That is moral laws that apply to all people in all situations, in all cultures at all times. No moral law exists that is universal. So what does this say about the existence or the supposed necessity of such absolute moral laws?

 

[Toolo]

God is God. And that is the Absolute Truth.

 

[cleft_for_me]

Very interesting, but I must disagree. In that you are limiting your view (references), IMO.

I would base this on the theory of relativity. That was a most fascinating discovery. For the fact that an object can be both 30cm and 40cm and not contradict the law of physics or measurement is almost unbelievable and it is the essence of that logic I pose against your assertion that both things can’t be true.

If however you argue that then is it true if the “frame of reference” is kept constant. Then I would assert, it is not absolute since that constant is relative not abosulute and all thing their in would then be vicariously non-absolute.


The assertion that truth is subjective and can not be absolute does not mean there is not “wrong or right” it only means that if wrong and right switched places, it would make no difference to the system. Actually it just states that wrong and right sit somewhere on a circle.

The merit of the argument is not to stop making standards on which tolerance can be based. It only states that the standard should be directly related to the situation. (i.e. Circler vs. linear)


yes, that the point, the reverse is equal!

on the contrary, the moral law must be alive and like other forms of life adapt and evolve in order to survive (to be of value, to serve purpose)!

Hey.

I want to respond to all your points. But for starters, mathematics must testify to absolute truth. I don't understand your logic. 2+2 must always equal four. 2+2 can never equal five, never, whether or not one person believes it equals 5, another 3. It always equals 4 because it is consistent with reality, and it is a truth that never changes: if you learned your whole life that 2+2 equals 5, that still would not make it correct against the test of reality.

This chair I'm sitting on either exists or doesn't. There are no other options.

 

[cleft_for_me]

I do not believe anyone is quite claiming that. I noted that IF absolute truth exists there would be no way we could know it. Note my absolute statement here depends upon absolutes existing.

Hey.

First of all, let's say if absolute truth does exist, how do know there can be no way of knowing it? What is your reasoning on this?

 

[Achichem]

Pulling out the math on me, eh?

But for starters, mathematics must testify to absolute truth.

Yes and no,

2+2 = 4 may indeed be absolute based on the other rules of mathematics, but the problem doesn't come up in theory, in which I have no doubt to the existence of “absolute truth”, but in reality.

You see, once Einstein proved relativity, it was in my opinion confirmed we live in a circular based universe. Where all thing begin and end at “the point”! Where by at one ponit both alpha and omega are the same.(many take it diffrently)

2+2 must always equal four. 2+2 can never equal five, never, whether or not one person believes it equals 5, another 3.

Not exactly,

According to special relativity, 2cm traveling 60% the speed of light + 2cm travelling 1% times the speed of light (measured at a constant speed) is not equal to 4cm at the constant speed.

In order for 2cm + 2cm = 4cm all measurements have to be made at a constant speed (all must share a common “frame of reference”). So then the absolute truth of 2 + 2 = 4 is dependant. Since it is dependant, I would be non-absolute!

(I could go over a more practical thing like an apple or a chair, but that would take a very long time since I would have to first prove to you that an apple is dependand on realitive x,y,z components vs. real x,y,z components and furthermore what defines an apple/chair and how that realtes to x,y,z)

I don't understand your logic

Yes a circular universe is hard to understand, that is why all of us think in liner terms! But just because we simplify stuff down, does not make the simplified right.

and it is a truth that never changes

Yes, that is true, why? Because truth doesn’t exist, but is subjective, used to try and understand a circular world, in liner terms.

Think of a 3D picture, if you were to set your consciousness in a 2D object in a 3D world, the only way to comprehend, would be to translate the z terms into x,y terms or ignore the z all together. We use both these methods when understanding "complete relativity".

A circle is used most often, because on a circle you can have two points, call them “truth”(a) and “error”(b), now “truth and “error” in most cases can exist and have a spectrum in between themselves (hence making it in liner terms that we can understand clearly). Yet at one point a and b are the same, this is call “the point” and is what you would call absolute truth, the problem is that same point is also absolute error(note that it can be at any ponit on the circle)!

This chair I'm sitting on either exists or doesn't. There are no other options.

Of but there is, one need only take a few philosophy classes to hear of the hundreds of possibilities.

I know we will probably agree to disagree, but I just wanted to try an make my position as clear as possible.(which is quite difficult)

 

[Volos]

God is God. And that is the Absolute Truth.

If only you had something besides subjective belief to back that up.

 

[Volos]

First of all, let's say if absolute truth does exist, how do know there can be no way of knowing it? What is your reasoning on this?

It comes down to how we determine if a truth claim is true or false.

If a truth claim is immediately verifiable then we can test that truth claim for ourselves. You can confirm the local news claim that the price of gas is $2.27 a gallon by going the your local gas station and seeing for yourself. Your mother’s claim that it is raining out can be verified by going to the window.



Truth claims not referring to things and concepts not in you immediate vicinity or in the past my be verified contingently. We can verify these truth claims only by accepting some intermediate source as being true. My truth claim that John Adams was the first vice president of the United States can be confirmed by checking the encyclopedia but first you must make the assumption that the encyclopedia is accurate.



Other truth tests, pragmatic and esthetic are reliant on subjective opinion so let’s leave them on the shelf for the time being.



IF (and this is a big if) objective truth does exist the problem becomes how to verify such a truth.

The first issue is in being objective. Despite what we may like to think of ourselves we are largely subjective creatures. Our own desires and preconceived notions about objective truth already limit what we can perceive about any truth much less objective truth.

Ultimately the problem is how do we verify that objective truth is just that. to do so we would have to verify such truth universally, meaning that the supposed objective truth was true at all times and in all places. This is basically impossible. We can contingently believe that objective truth exists but that leave the possibility of doubt and one of the base criteria for objective truth (at least in my subjective opinion) is that objective truth will be beyond doubt.

 

[cleft_for_me]

Hmmm. Nothing like a deep discussion on absolutes to get me thinkin'

Hey guys.. though this has nothing in particular to do with your posts, I realize that I have had the wrong motive in defending what I call the Truth. I should not pretend to know everything about the evidences I bring up to defend my positions. Though after learning what I have on my own-- mostly through reading and science/philosophy classes as well as the ministry of God's Spirit in my life--I still have much to learn, especially in attitude. I am confident enough to say that I will give up my entire life to testify to what I believe to be true. But I should testify with strength and humility, not belligerence. Using the words of a christian writer in apologetics, the truth to me is infinitely precious and worth defending, but it is not of my own making. I cannot take credit for "its greatness or even to the fact that we can recognize it as truth" (Eph. 2:8-9) My heart is in the wrong place.

~lol, for you athiests/agnostics, these statements in themselves could probably bring up a couple new threads!

Anyways. That said, (Ha, if you've actually read this far), I need a break from the forums. Not because of the above--I really do want to talk with you guys more. Philosophy and science rock! But I have many tests to do in school and finals week is coming. Perhaps I can resume this summer.

God bless you all.