What is necessary to prove whether or not absolute truth exists?
This is a hotly contested topic of debate for many, and has been for centuries. Can you think of anything that would help shed light on this subject? Does absolute truth exist? Or if you prefer to answer this one, "does truth exist?" What are some ways this can be tested? Perhaps it isn't as hard as some make it out to be? Curious your thoughts on it, because its an idea that seems to matter, and some are so set in their belief one way or the other.
i just have a question to people who say truth does not exist. is it absolutely true that truth does not exist?
Hi!!! There is truth for every subject. For some things, we CANNOT find the truth. It must be given.
For instance, I would not know that our planet was round, lest whatchamacalit told me.
I would not know that the law of gravity is that thing which pins me down, lest...
But do I actually know these things? Uh, no. Because someone tomorrow could reveal that the earth is actually square and we miss the corners because of the spinning.
For anything we believe about the world, someone must report and then be trusted enough to be believed. Especially for absolutes.
My belief about absolutes come from Christianity. The bible is the resource. One believes that, or doesn't. It may only be tested by itself.
Many others place their faith elsewhere.
It is a decision we all must make.
No, that fact (accepted by me) cannot be tested.
Absolutes take faith... in something.
Does that mean there are no absolutes because so many claim no "faith" in anything? No. There is truth behind everything. No way around it.
In my opinion.
people obviously have differing views. but aren’t some correct and some wrong? if the earth really is square, then we were wrong about its roundness. our thinking never changed the shape.
True. Our thoughts on the matter do nothing to change what simply is/is not.
Concerning truth, I subscribe to a relativist position. However I do not define relativism in the manner that it is commonly defined. The common definition holds that : "No one can know anything for sure." Such a definition is sorely lacking , and so I have offered a better definition as follows: "All that we can know, is that a man cannot be certain of knowing anything for sure".
This argument cannot be refuted, since we cannot even be certain that we cannot be certain! What I have clearly stated here is the only "truth" that we can be sure of. Any other "truth" that we may choose to follow can only lead to an infinite regress. Although it may be entertaining and thought provoking, to seriously pursue the question of truth is a waste of time.In spite of my relativist position, I embrace an absolute idealistic moral code, more for pragmatic reasons than from a conviction that there is actually an absolute truth, or morality.
On the contrary, my definition illustrates the impossibility of "knowing" by clearly showing that we can only know the uncertainty of knowing.
why is only knowing the uncertainty the exception to the rule?
Because the uncertainty can be applied to the plus, the minus, or the inbetween. Such a statement cannot refute itself, because when it appears to do so, it only strengthens or validates the original postulate. Thus, avoiding infinite regress.
it does refute itself. you say "ALL that we can know, is that a man cannot be certain of knowing ANYTHING for sure". That includes the statement we cant know anything for sure. its self refuting. also, if that true, why argue anything?
Taking a portion of my statement out of context does not prove your argument.I can say, "I don't believe murder is a good thing". This statement includes, as you might say, "Murder is a good thing". Now you will accuse me of advocating murder. LOL!
LOL. yep, i see. sorry. not intentional. i also just read your previous statement again to my question about why uncertainty is the exception. i see what your sayin now. i will give this some thought. thank you. recommended reading?
I think I'm in the same camp as wrenchBiscuit but not in the same tent. I'm not absolutely sure I'm telling the truth either.
Very interesting Chef, esp. the last sentence. Very honest! I have been paying attention to this conversation and appreciate everyone's comments. As for Wrench, I can understand his view as long as he is not certain of that view. For consistency.
It is your perspective that leaves you in constant confusion.
To prove that absolute truth exists absolute truth has to exist. If truth was relative or if it didn't exist the scientific method would be impossible. In science you test if under certain circumstances you get certain results consistently. This happens with many things, That's why we use the scientific method.
Your position doesn't take into account universal distortions. For instance, many believe that "1+1=2" is an irrefutable knowledge, but in a room full of mirrors, any two objects will appear to be at least 4 or more; a truth to those unaware.
the mirror examples does not refute math. 1 of something plus another 1 of something is 2. in a room full or mirrors there's still only 2 objects. the mirrors show a reflection of the 2. they dont add to them. if they did , then its no longer 1+1
I am using analogy and metaphor to illustrate how universal distortion can create an illusion that would be impossible to discover while in a particular continuum. It's not a matter of refuting anything. It is a matter of perception.
im merely pointing out your analogy doesn’t work.
Apparently it doesn't work for someone who doesn't understand. All I can do is give you a road map. I can't take you there. You can give no valid reasons for your conclusion. Your reasoning is based on misinterpretation.
i can say apparently you dont understand, but where does that leave us? i gave a valid reason. 1+1=2. adding mirror doesnt add more objects , but images. if you count the images, its no longer 1+1 , but whatever the addition of the images
It is a metaphor for universal distortion. Our truth is not necessarily determined by what is, but by our perception. As such, all mathematical and scientific principles may only apply to this continuum.Hence, not a truth but an illusion.
why do you think truth is based on our perception and not what is?
I did not say that. I said "our" truth. Human perception is limited and subject to distortion. It is simply human arrogance to assume otherwise. It may very well take more than one to equal one. Thus, 1+1>2. Thus, a relative math; not absolute.
Fair point. If things are presented that create distortions, then we are speaking of something else added into the point being made. If someone is deluded by a trick , it doesn't change the actual facts of a matter, and adds another, into things.
Yes. Truth exists. If it did not then we would not be here today. For instance: Does a light bulb light if it is not burned out? Yes, it does.
There are people who cannot tell anything but the truth. One way to tell whether someone is telling you the truth is watch their eyes. If they look directly into yours, without shying away, they are usually telling the truth. Although there are people now and then who can train themselves to do this also, but there is a small difference. With practice you will learn to be able to tell the good ones from the bad ones.
For those who tell lies instead of the truth, they cannot look you in the eyes and will usually turn their eyes away from yours - even though they keep their head facing you - when they speak.
If there are any that speak 50/50, you will probably see them look into your eyes sometimes when they speak and turn their eyes away at other times.
When you cannot see the person, it is best to get more than one opinion to find out the truth. For example, if you are reviewing a subject.
I tried to answer your question, but the system said my answer was too long. Sorry.
You could try again or post in parts perhaps? Would love to see your answer too. There is option to do a hub too as a response for lengthier answers.
To answer now, I will have to "comment" on my own answer. Hubpages really does get a bit ridiculous with some of this stuff. Anyway, here goes:
Absolute truth is a slippery devil to get hold of. Absolutes, in general, are a mental construct that has
You know, we could start over, and I could delete this comment if that is the reason you post a longer one. A few have posted a longer comment, and this way you could answer again? Just let me know. It looks like you were cut off again.
I'd say there is no one test, experiment, procedure or proposal that can necessarily prove that absolute truth exists. Why try to attempt to prove the unprovable? But then on the contrary why not? You could approach it from the logical angle and suggest that, ok, if absolute truth does exist then it's opposite must also exist, that is, absolute untruth. This conjures up an image of the biggest LIE that could ever be told but that is a different story......... and we'd end up in circles, biting our own tails!
In any debate on the subject proof has first to be defined. How many proofs are there? Well, it depends on which school of scientific or religious or philosophical thought you belong to. One man's proof of truth is another man's proof of untruth or falsehood. Proof is the establishing of fact and fact can only be truthful if there is sufficient evidence to back the fact up. Absolute truth should be dependent on an absolute fact or group of facts but with all the scientific knowledge in the world, all the belief in the world, absolute evidence for absolute truth's existence isn't necessarily available.
Let's say one person exists on one island. One coconut tree provides the only source of food. The person relies on the tree, the tree on the soil, the soil on the rain, the rain on the clouds and so on. Surely this scenario provides an opportunity to test for proof of absolute truth? Then again perhaps not.
I think also there is a tendency to confuse truth with belief. These two are surely not bedfellows. In the court of truth I may have to tell the truth but I certainly don't have to believe. I swear on the bible not because I'm a believer but because the court wants the truth. In the Absolute Court would the truth I tell be absolute? That's another argument for the logicians.
For me there is no possibility of an absolute truth simply being found or scientifically proven although I'm very willing to be proved wrong! I don't think we need an absolute truth to function as human beings, we just need the knowledge that our value systems and freedoms are healthy from a moral point of view and that everyone has a right to search for and argue for or against an absolute truth. Philosophy, homespun or otherwise, is perhaps necessary for debating the existence of absolute truth (without fear of prejudice and biased opinion) and perhaps the only approach to any sense of an absolute truth is through analogy, metaphor and that old chestnut, reason.
All Seers worthy of their salt tell you that you have to experience it yourself. Since you think it's a hotly contested topic, you may wish to use the mind to reason and debate. The mind is limited, though. You need to taste the mango then you will become qualified to say it's succulent, juicy, etc
Spiritual experience is no different. The God-man can and does gives a taste but we still have to do the work. Everyone needs his own inner experience.
if you meditate or pray, then great. Just in case you don't, then try daily for 15 mins morning and evening for three months without fail, and then see if there is any change in your nature. The Christ did miracles, but the same people who saw, were shouting for him to be crucified.
So, what is needed? an inner hunger; a life of prayer and meditation and selfless service to your fellow man. Service expands the heart and will prepare you for the Higher Forces when they descend. You will not find them in the reasoning mind. Love and Light.
What is necessary to prove whether or not absolute truth exists?
This question stumps most people and forces many to turn back from the road of discovery.
To answer this question we must first define terms.
These questions generally fall into questions asked in Philosophy.
My approach starts with the Rule I developed for this purpose of determining 'How to Know'.
Rule 1: The Solution to Confusion is Definition.
First we must define what it means to be an 'Absolute'.
An absolute is something that doesn't change.
Secondly we define what a Truth is.
Truth means Reality - what is real!
Therefore we may reframe your question to: Is there anything in this Universe that doesn't change and is real? The answer is then - YES!
As a Physicist I have discovered only one Absolute in the Physical Universe. That absolute is that Everything is Energy!
Einstein taught us that E = mc2, Everything is Energy!
The law of the Conservation of Energy teaches us that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only constantly changing form.
The Totality of Energy is an absolute - never changing and is what is Truth - what is real.
Only when you understand that everything is energy and operates according to the rules of energy will you begin to make sense out of the chaos of this Universe.
Once you understand that Absolute Truth does exist in this Universe, the door to a Spiritual Paradigm may open.
Truth. Many have asked if it is possible to know it. A few have even asked if it's possible to prove truth or prove absolute truth when you've found it. This article could answer these questions. read more
by Apostle Jack6 years ago
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so.......that make them just as ignorant about the matter as those that they say can't prove that He does.That is a clear view of the Pot calling the kettle...
by marinealways248 years ago
-I started a conversation with "tantrum" a while back on absolutes. He said that no absolutes exist. I said that I "think" I agree. If I would have agreed fully that no absolutes exist, it would have...
by jomine3 years ago
Exist is defined as having physical presence, that is having shape and location.Energy is defined as the capacity to do work.(No capacities exist, its just the ability of an object)So does energy exists?If yes can...
by accofranco8 years ago
If your answer is yes,what is your proof.And then which religion is the true religion and which one is false and why do you think so?
by twingwiri8 years ago
As a fellow human being,i want to ask if we could exist without a belief of something o one greater than ourselves.I believe if there was no God we'd have to invent Him.
by DK6 years ago
Following a debate with AKA Winston on his forum "If you subtract mankind from existence, what is left?" http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/89816It is clear that the question is not as obvious as it may first...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.