Is there such as thing as absolute truth? What is it?
After all, if a person insists that truth is relative (and we can't determine what beliefs are right and wrong), what reason is there to believe anything that they say?
There is absolute truth and its easy to prove. I either ate an apple today or I did not, is a statement of undeniable truth.
What is truth and is it relative? Truth is a set of conditions that stay the same. Fact: If I turn on my tap and get water, I will always get water unless conditions change. As long as the conditions that provide water today don't change, I will always get water. Absolutely. However, if something in the system changes, the truth of the conditions change and I may not get water, which then becomes the absolute truth of situation..
Hence, truth is relative to the specific conditions. When conditions change, the truth changes. But remains absolute until the conditions change.
And some conditions can't change. I ate an apple today or I didn't. That truth can't change and remains absolute forever, even if you can't know which is the fact. And of course I can give probably thousands of similar examples: I ran a mile today or not., etc, etc, etc. All absolute statements of unalterable fact. .
But does water boil at 212f or 100c? Yes and no. It depends on altitude, pressure and purity of water. It may boil at a slightly higher or lower temperature depending on the specific conditions. But, when any specific conditions are repeated exactly, you will absolutely get the same results, showing that truth is absolute, relative to specific conditions remaining the same, and then absolute relative to changed conditions as long as they remain unaltered.
So yes, truth is absolute, and relative to the conditions it refers to. Change the conditions, change the truth. Only when conditions aren't or can't be altered is truth static. But it's always absolute.
I would say that truth and fact are not the same thing. Truth is what somebody believes is true, although it may not be factually "true". In this modern world, myth is often far more powerful than fact, and that is when myth becomes truth.
True, if you keep repeating a myth, it can become a fact within someone's delusional mind. Repeating an ancient fairytale without clear evidences, over and over, becomes a form of insanity, not an actual spiritual fact.
As a closer fact, not a absolute fact. Spiritual means the 99% unknowns. So that being, who can honestly say they are very spiritual or very intelligent. Not a true sign of either, if claimed. Not until an unknown becomes manifest into our ego individual self along with it being clearly understood by others surrounding you. As it can move closer to facts and truth in degrees for all.
Like the idea, :A command based on words of Jesus “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” The Mosaic law contains a parallel commandment: “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.” unto others, as you would them do onto you. Is an idea, then when you work the idea, into a practice of experiences, then it becomes a knowing of visual reality.
As one become more spiritual sided, one comes closer and closer towards the truth as one gains more facts to confirm a closer and closer form of knowing, mostly by experiencing, not by heresay or by wrong translation.
Truth and fact are the same thing. Something is true/fact or not. Delusion may at times be powerful, but never becomes true no matter how many people believe it or act on it. Truth is not relative to perception, its relative to specific conditions. Myth is not always without basis, but unless it can be proven true, you can't honestly say it is. Same, by the way, with scientific hypothesis.
I think this depends on your definition of the word "truth". Yes - it can be defined as "fact", but it can also be defined as "what is generally believed". It is one of those words that causes problems because it is used in different ways in different circumstances - "theory" is another word that falls into this category.
The term "theory" is used very differently among scientists than it is by the general public. Evolution and relativity, for example; both are "theories" in science, but with massive supporting evidence - evidence to the point that they are considered factual and true even though "theory".
But what the general public calls a "theory" is, more often than not, considered a "hypothesis" by science. Something that needs to be proven true to become a theory. And idea or concept that little to attempt has been made to prove true.
This is clearly seen when people say that Evolution is "only a theory" and use this to claim that Creationism - the belief that God created everything around 10,000 years ago - is just as valid. They should be told that Gravity, and the notion that the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun are also "theories"!
Can you imagine creatism being forced to be taught in every school in America. That is what vice President Pence is aiming for. The proof is in the Flintstones Christmas show.
We have always had a problem with Christian mythology being forced onto the rest of the public. The fight against gay marriage, Christian icons scattered throughout public land and buildings, Emblazoning propaganda on our money and in our anthem, prohibition...the list is nearly endless.
I expect in the future we will see more efforts at bringing Islam into our legal system, perhaps with other myths as well. People are never satisfied to simply accept their beliefs; they must be forced onto others as well.
Exactly. As close to certainty as one can get. The notion that the earth and other planets orbit the sun are self evident fact to anyone who's studied the motion of earth and the planets. Gravity is also a self evident fact but the interpretation of why it works and all its implications are still widely debated,
What I often wonder about is why creationists don't get the fact that if a god exists, then science is just telling us how it all works. There is no real quarrel between science and religion unless you take the OT as literal fact.
Unfortunately for those that do. it's been been proven wrong by science. Earth is 3.5 billion years old, not 10,000. Faith forbids them from accepting fact, so science becomes a threat to faith. They want their faith taught in public schools in science class. That becomes a threat to science and the search for how it all works.
Evolution itself is not a threat to creationism. Evolution isn't about origins, it only starts after biology comes into being. The Christian idea of evolution vs creation is a non-issue. Evolution started after what ever events that started biology. So it's a false dichotomy.. It's not either or, its first biology, then evolution.
Of course the problem remains that faith tells some of them animals plants and humans were created as is. That's clearly not the case. Most people of European decent have a small percent of Neanderthal DNA. They were not homo-sapiens. And they were not the only early humanoid species we mated with and evolved from.
The facts don't back up biblical interpretation of creation, but only the fundamentalists care. The Catholic church, once the ruler of the western world, has no problem with science, including evolution. That's because they never took the OT literally.
What can you do when there is zero common ground? Religion and science are totally compatible, except. when dealing with fundamentalists. Fundamentalist faith is not compatible with logic. Not a thing we can do about it except make sure they never gain power.
I disagree. Belief is irrelevant. It changes nothing. What is generally believed doesn't alter the truth no matter how hard people believe. Nor how they distort the meaning of words. Truth is fact. If not, its not true.
It is, of course, true that what is generally believed is generally believed. (a tautology, but true) But what they believe isn't necessarily a truth.
Theory is an often misused word even in science. I'm a philosopher of science and point out, even to scientists, that many theories are hypothesis, not theory..
A theory has a lot of evidence behind it and can be tested. Relativity is a theory well tested and proven time and time again. Many worlds theory, string theory and so many others are not testable and therefore should be called hypothesis, not theory.
Many worlds is based on great math. But your math can be as pretty and as compelling as it likes, unless it proves itself through experiment, it's not much more than a guess. It can not be considered fact just on math alone.
Feynman illustrated this perfectly. While developing quantum electrodynamics. There were numerous times he was sure the math he was working with had to be right. Each time he tested the math it failed to match reality, until finally one day he got it right by changing his whole perspective. Now we have QED; the most accurate theory physics has ever produced outside of Relativity.
Should theory ever be considered fact? Theories are based on facts. QM is a good working theory from which we can accurately predict quantum events.
Facts are the results of tests we do. They are the raw data. Do this, you observe that, every time. But why? And there's the rub. QM has a dozen interpretations. They are models that try to explain the facts. But each is contradictory to the others and most can't be tested yet, and some may not be testable even in principal.
So the facts of a theory, the raw data, are facts. But the interpretations of why the facts are what they are are often models that may even be useful, but aren't necessarily factual themselves.
So you can think of the provable raw data as fact, but not always the interpretation of why its fact.
Hence, gathering data is science. Interpreting the data is often philosophy/hypothesis unless and until the philosophy itself can be tested and verified.
Which is why, to me, belief is useless. A fact is a fact. Belief in a fact is redundant. Belief in a speculative idea is useless and might even be dangerous.
Opinion is fine. Based on fact, even better, but faith is the end of the search for truth. And should faith be destroyed by new found fact, it can be emotionally devastating.
Hence belief/faith is not required. Better to accept facts as fact only if they are proven, and when faced with a speculative idea, test it, or wait .and see. There's no shame in saying we don't know. Why believe what you can't know with certainty? When you do know, what's there to believe?
So, is a theory ever absolute fact? Yes, but only when data and interpretation are tested and proven. It is however fact or not even without proof. But we can't know which until its tested. If its not even testable even in principal, it may still be true, but we can't know one way or the other. And we can't say one way or the other, so it doesn't add anything to our actual knowledge base.
I do not think there is such thing as the absolute truth
No reason really. We go by Faith. Saints say that they cannot tell us anything which we don't already know. They merely remind us, and if our fire is dowsed with the right ingredient, it alights, that's all.
We are the masters of our Faith, and for me at least, a small voice is talking all the time. I find that luckily, it corresponds with what the Saints tell me, but it is still up to me to make the decisions. So Absolute Truth ultimately lies in the experience of the seeker; the God-lover....or what ever other names one chooses to use.
If absolute truth lies in experience, what happens when experience leads different people to different truths? Does that not logically invalidate the absoluteness of said truth?
Ch, the whole of life's unrest, incuding this conversation, is because we use the mind; we see two. There is only Spirit. All flow from this. But only inner experience can show us this. Not science, not mind, nor separation or division. All is He.
What you're describing sounds like pantheism. We can agree that I will always disagree with you on that point. If all is He and I am part divine, that makes me horrifically terrified.
Pantheism is Spirit; Spirit is Pantheism. You are within that game. You are the game. There is only Consciousness, manifesting in different ways, the same Absolute eternal, timeless...Dive into the water; let go of the mind..
You certainly are free to hold your own opinion.
I'll paraphrase Dennis Prager to answer this.
If there is no absolute right or wrong per the Ten Commandments, then there is no absolute morality.
If you use majority rule as the basis of truth and morality, 95% can vote to kill the other 5%, or 90% can decide to enslave the other ten.
If there is no absolute morality per a higher power, then morality can be whatever someone says it is. And you get dens of thieves whose values say theft is OK, or a cult of Kali saying it is good to murder people.
The claim that thete is no absolute is itself a statement of an absolute.
Hi CH Elijah Sadaphal! How's it going?
My but that is a rather sweeping question you ask. But I shall offer you what is, as far as I can tell, a "micro-Absolute Truth," if you will permit me. It concerns one of my favorite examples.
The basic principle is this: Purity of historical, underlying motives should be tested in judging the worthiness of ritual.
What do I mean by that? Let's take my favorite two examples: 1) The Ramadan month of fasting from Islam; and 2) The practice of clerical celibacy in Catholicism.
The origin of clerical celibacy has its origin in the desire of the Church hierarchy to prevent illegitimate children of clergy from inheriting church property: a rather grubby reason. Needless to say what this practice has led to; I'm referring to the worldwide priestly child sexual molestation scandal.
But the practice of Ramadan is expressly taken on to remember the poor, who cannot eat and drink whenever they feel like it. The fast is a beautiful ritual of social solidarity.
Now, I am not a Catholic and I am not a Muslim. But the practice of clerical celibacy has base roots and has produced base results, to say the least. Ramadan, on the other hand, being a beautiful ritual of social solidarity, as I've said, is, I daresay, divine.
Take it easy!
Hey! I would dare say that regardless of how pure the original motive is, humanity has the deal with the pervasiveness of sin that warps our reality. Often, this taints the absolute and transforms any type of "truth" into socio-cultural preference.
Hold on! What question are you asking? Are you asking about "absolute truth" or are you asking about corruptibility of said truth? And, to my knowledge, the Ramadan has not been corrupted by "sin" in the same way priestly celibacy has.
Both, and I am not qualified to comment on matters as they pertain to Islam.
But, does an "absolute" truth's corruptibility make it any less "absolutely" true? We're talking about human execution of "truth," as it were.
Absolute truth remains absolute and true independent of people. It is in the execution of that truth that corruption enters and taints.
Good! Then why did you mention, last time, about your inability to talk about matters pertaining to Islam? That was not the issue I was raising. The compassion of the Ramadan (to remember the poor) remains an unadulterated "truth," does it not?
Because I am not familiar with much is the Muslim faith. Hence, in reference to the claim that, "Ramadan has not been corrupted by 'sin'" I can't comment. I am uninformed about Ramadan & its tradition, therefore I will refrain from commenting.
But you do not have to know anything about Islam. An "absolute truth" is not an absolute truth, if it is specific to any religious or philosophical system. The question is: Do you consider sympathy and compassion to be absolute truths?
Are you guys Christian? If so, you KNOW "men LIE," GOD doesn't (Numbers 23:19)! So NOTHING is "ABSOLUTE TRUTH" BUT GOD (aka HOLY SPIRIT)!
TRUTH is in the eye of the beholder!
I see you posted this question under “Religion and Philosophy,” but I will answer from a “Spiritual” perspective and in doing so, it depends on whether one is a Believer or an Unbeliever!
As Believers, the Scripture told us to “test the spirits” (I John 4:1) and there is a lot of “testing” going on from the comments and answers I’ve seen to various questions on HP! MOST “think” there are millions of highways to the CREATOR and that “We all serve the same GOD” which is a “LIE,” according to Scripture!
If CHRIST is the Bridegroom (Ephesians 5:23-27) and we (THE CHURCH) are HIS Bride, do you think HE wants us committing “Spiritual” adultery? Within various “Religions,” they either worship “man” (Geeta, Prophet Muhammad, etc.) or “an idol” (Buddha, etc.) which is committing “Spiritual” adultery! Did GOD not say HE is “A JEALOUS GOD” (Exodus 34:14)? Even within “Christianity,” man has “interpreted” what he “thinks” is right (Proverbs 14:12) also committing “Spiritual” adultery!
IF one is a Believer, they MUST believe “ALL” of GOD’S WORD! Proverbs 30:5 says “Every WORD of GOD is “PURE:” (RIGHT) HE is a shield unto them that put their “trust” in HIM.” Did you notice key word: “TRUST?”
There are numerous debates as to whether or not the Bible was actually “inspired by GOD” (II Timothy 3:16) to which I say, “YES,” because the basic “Moral of the Story” has not been removed! Sure, man has “added” and/or “deleted” from HIS WORD, but before JESUS’ ascension, HE asked us to “WAIT” (Acts 1:4) for “HELP” from the HOLY SPIRIT (John 14:26; 16:13) which would “lead and guide us into “ALL” TRUTH” which includes “additions” and/or “deletions!”
You are right in saying “…we (man) can't determine what beliefs are right and wrong” for JESUS said HE (HOLY SPIRIT) would “lead and guide us into ALL TRUTH” but “unfortunately,” we “lean to our own understanding” and not “TRUST” in HIS WORD (Proverbs 3:5) which has created over 33,000+ denominations within "Christianity" and the majority is NOT "With One Accord!" IF the Holy Spirit was involved, we would have the SAME MIND and would receive the SAME "REVELATION" of HIS WORD!
Did Scripture not tell us (Believers) to "Let this mind be in you which was also in CHRIST JESUS" (Philippians 2:5)? Why then do you think CHRIST have 33,000+ different minds?
Therefore, TRUTH comes from no one, BUT GOD!
The Bible claims, it is absolute universal truth and knowledge. How can we check this out? Since mankind collectively has not experience and even touched 99% of the Earth's mass. The Earth's mass starts 6km. beneath the surface of this planet. We barely know our 1% earth mass. Everyone and everything is forever changing, so no absolute. Even if someone tells you, they are very honest and very intelligent about what is absolute. Yeah right.....
So we're to assume that when you say there's no absolute truth, you are telling us that's an absolute truth? That kind of logic shoots itself in the foot as it proves itself wrong if its right, and is obviously wrong if its wrong.
Just because you don't know what the absolute truth is doesn't imply there is none. And it's obvious that there is. Again; my mundane example: I ate an apple today or I didn't. It doesn't matter which is the truth. One of those two is an indisputable absolute fact.
Is the bible fact? It only claims to be. But it is or it is not. That's a fact. I tend to think not for a hundred reasons or more, but I can't say its not with absolute certainty. Neither can any believer say it is with absolute certainty though they to think they can.
Not knowing doesn't mean its not absolutely true or absolutely false. But one of those two is an absolute fact.
We do know some facts about life, physics, chemistry, how to play a guitar, drive a car etc. Again, it's a cause and effect universe. If you know the causes and effects, you can do things that constantly get exactly the same results as long as you do it under the exact same conditions every time.
Change the conditions you get different results. Repeat those conditions exactly you'll get the same results.
Yes, things change. Change is a constant. That's an absolute truth. How?
Chaos theory. Simplicity to complexity happens by following simple rules/processes over and over again under different conditions.
Every tree is different. Why? Because a tree follows a simple rule over and over again: Grow a little and divide. Because no two things can occupy the same space at the same time, soil, shade, sun, rain, etc etc are unique for every plant and thus they look different. That doesn't change.
The laws of physics don't change. Yet they create the almost infinite diversity and change of this universe in an absolutely ordered manner.
Absolute truth exists everywhere. But we don't and often can't know what it is. It's up to us to keep searching for them. Truth is about a set of conditions and relationships. It's not about our perception of them, it's about how they actually are.
We can't see absolute reality, but there is an absolute underlying reality. Our experience of existence relates directly to it. Perception doesn't alter or create reality;
It all comes into degrees of truth. Who ever is in tops judgement in this absolute truth is flawed to a low or a high degree of this truth.
The past does not change...
Although we becoming increasingly adept at saying it has.
The past does not change, but history does. History is interpretations of the past, usually written by people who have a conscious or unconscious urge to place a degree of bias in their stories. These biases lead to myths that turn into "truths".
An example. Everybody "knows" that young George Washington admitted to his father that he cut down a cherry tree, saying "I cannot tell a lie", and his reputation for honesty was thereby enshrined for all time. But the cherry tree story is a complete myth - it just didn't happen. This was an invention by a later writer who wanted to make a political point.
This sort of thing happens all the time!
The further we go back in the pass, the more sketchy bias and wrongly translations it becomes.
Agreed. But I'd say: History doesn't change, but our interpretation and understanding of it does. We seldom have all the facts about historical events and people, and we rely on not always unbiased or even fully informed contemporary writers, and most often not so contemporary to the event.
Something actually happened. But exactly what is often more of a guess than anything else.
Often, yes. But again, not always. And truth doesn't come in degrees, our understanding of it often does. Hence the way we understand things is how we explain them to ourselves and others. That comes in degrees of accuracy. It has nothing to do with actual full truth.
Science is based on absolute truth. Does it define absolute truth? Yes, to the extent that it
Of course, but most people don't want to know it. If you want to know the truth, seek it. If you want to know what is the truth faith, ask God.
Of course "Absolute Truth" exists and here's a few perfect examples of the "TRUTH": Bozo Trump has spewed at least 10,000 LIES and or Misleading Statements since his illegitimate presidency began, for which he will be impeached: The EARTH is NOT Flat: On National Television in broad daylight, Bozo Trump encouraged Russian Hackers to break into and steal property belonging to United States Citizens for which he expressed a willingness to receive and look at said stolen property: Bozo Trump said Climate Change is a HOAX by China and he also said Windmills cause cancer: Bozo Trump also insulted our armed forces by saying he liked American Military who were NOT Captured:
ALL the above are "ABSOLUTE Truths" and can be easily searched to verify: Of course thay are TURTHS for all normal individuals except perhaps for those who reside in KellyAnne CLOWNways "Alternative Universe of Retardation":
To win to be the president, you have to be the best lair. Only what's in their heart could matter afterwards. Yet, since the Elite energy vampires suck the rest of their soul out of these puppets minions. Then they become a un -serving dangerous public parisite who can't handle the truth.
It's a sad thing when a a democratic people are so skeptical about their government, and so rightly so. I'm sure Republicans see the truth but don't acknowledge it, and try to justify the unjustifiable just to stay in power and have their agenda accomplished regardless of how. Does the end justify the means? I really don't think so.
Yes, absolutevtruth exists, but we humans have not found it yet.
Absolute truth is beyond my imagination. I can't even imagine the whole collective human species, while having at best 1%(surface) known knowledge about the earth mass. Could figure out anything of absolute truth. The bar and levels are forever changing.
Yes, but you don't have to know all of it to know it exists. In fact its better for survival that we are limited the way we are. Imagine being able to see the full light spectrum? See atoms? You'd have a hell of a time figuring out what anything is.
We can't see ultimate reality, but our brains/senses see reality perfectly from a separate level. Everything we experience is reality seen from a specific perspective. It all represents the underlying reality and corresponds to it.
It's like text on your screen. If you saw all the underlying code, the binary, the pixels, how they are produced, and every aspect of what puts the words on the screen, what a mess it would all be.
We see an end result that corresponds to all that makes it up, but filters all the unessential and confusing information, making living a more viable enterprise.
A discussion on absolute truth, at this juncture of our collective journey, seems ludicrous. Someone commented something to the effect that a statement of 'i ate an apple' could be viewed as true. Really?
Depending on the depth of the discussion, that may be true. But take every argument made to another level and the claims become unverifiable. Claiming knowledge and/or proof of an absolute truth is an exercise in ego and biased observation.
Claiming knowledge and/or proof of an absolute truth is an exercise in ego and biased observation.
Much like asking 6 blind people to examine a large elephant, then checking their results and observations.
The comment was: I either ate an apple today or I did not. It's unimportant which of those two are fact. The statement itself expresses an absolute undeniable truth. There are only those two possibilities.
You are pregnant or you aren't. There is no level of rational discussion where this is unverifiable. It's one or the other. It can't be both and it can't be neither.
It has zero to do with bias or ego. Its verifiable self evident logic.
I don't know. If we are simply a collection of cells, those cells made up of atoms, all we represent is matter obeying physical laws. Why? How? The answers to how atoms originally began to form into matter, adhere to physical laws, form life as we know it, mutate and form newer life forms, etc. seems to me to be moving toward what may prove an absolute truth.
You either ate an apple, or didn't, seems rather trivial, since you haven't explained if the apple is real, or just an illusion of sorts created through a long progression of illusions which you, too are an ultimate product of.
Yes, every finger print is different. Even every snowflake is different and will change appearance under a microscope. It will even change to look ugly if you look at it negative wail under a microscope.It will look more beautiful when you look a the snowflake more positive. As you are what you think also. Everything is forever changing, so there is no absolute truth, there are similarity and degrees. If I eat a fish, then I can tell you what fish taste like by experience. If you have not eaten fish you can't tell me what it taste like. Greater indifferent.
Well, say we are a simulation created by a 15 year old on a computer in his basement. What does knowing that change for us? Nothing. We still have to get up and go to work or we suffer. We still feel pain, love, anger, joy. This is reality.
What if a god created us? Changes nothing. We still suffer, love , etc.
You're asking about purpose. No one, nothing, can give you purpose. That's their purpose for you, not yours. We create our own purpose if we need one. Who cares what anyone else's purpose for us is?
I don't care what reality turns out to be. My only interest is in knowing what it is and how it works. How can I improve my life unless I understand cause and effect, no matter who created us or by what process we came to be?
Yes my example of absolute truth was trivial on purpose to show how self evident it is.
Regardless of what the apple actually is and regardless of what I actually am, I either ingested it or not. That's an event that either happened or not in what ever reality we live within.
What does the word reality mean? Factual conditions. you exist in regardless of what they are, even were we just a computer program, which I doubt but can't say with certainty is out of the realm of possibility. All we can do is try to figure out how it all works so we can manipulate it to our individual and collective advantage.
We're alive now, we will eventually die. In between we have to avoid suffering and try to make what ever this is a better place for all.
So you have no "free" will. You have will and lots of it. You're an individual. That's true no matter what reality ultimately is and how interconnected we are on other levels. Your will is you, and its unique to you and who you are, and no one else but you are in direct control of it.
So what if we're essentially meat robots? If this is what its like to be a meat robot, it's alright with me. Not a single thing changes for me should I discover it's true.
And to your other point, I've had similar moments of speculative insight. It does seem that through the laws of physics the universe is playing out a goal. Taken from the behavior of atoms, the goal seems to be balance. But interaction causes conflict which in turn demands resolution which often results in relationships that create new substances, which in turn interact with other substances, etc.
If you were going to speculate a universal purpose or goal, you say the universe is in a chaotic state and is attempting through interaction creation and change toward an ultimate balance.
In religious terms you might say the totality in turmoil. We and all things are conflicts created to work out all its problems and create perfection. A god state.
Of course, that's just analogy and fun thoughts based loosely on what we observe. And what more noble purpose could one want to be part of than the making of god?
But as for me, I'm fine with whatever reality turns out to be, even if there's no purpose for it at all. I don't expect to wake up dead someday. But if so, i'll have to go from there. We can't tell reality what to be. But we can try to discover what it is.
You are the one bringing up purpose. I didn't mention it. Your argument boils down to something akin to the government taxing me at 99% is irrelevant to the fact I am suffering.
Finding out this were a simulation would certainly be a giant step toward identifying absolute truth. Not absolute truth, but certainly a big stride.
Edit. I'd like to add that absolute truth transcends individual interests.
"You are the one bringing up purpose. I didn't mention it."
I thought it was implied in : "If we are simply a collection of cells, those cells made up of atoms, all we represent is matter obeying physical laws. Why? "
Where you get the: "Your argument boils down to something akin to the government taxing me at 99% is irrelevant to the fact I am suffering." is a mystery to me. You'll have to explain your logic to me.
Maybe it was implied, from your standpoint. I don't see things like you do because I don't believe we can know much, of absolute truths, nor do I see any significance to us, in these groupings of cells, in the grand scheme of things. We are either completely insignificant, or highly insignificant, depending on which way I view the possibilities.
I find your argument to be similar to my example because you are, as I see it, arguing in defense of what you believe, using limited data, willfully. Which works well, on some levels but plays into castle's example of blind men inspecting an elephant, but you are one blind man who is deaf to input from the rest of the blind working near you.
No, I'm arguing logic. I agree with your edit: " I'd like to add that absolute truth transcends individual interests"
We know for a fact that something is in the cave. We can, in the case of the elephant touch it and experience it even if we can fully understand it. The absolute truth of there being something there is self evident. As you say, that fact transcends subjective interest.
What ever it is, it is whether we know what it is or not.
You are pregnant, or not. That's an absolute fact, whether you know you are or not. That's absolute undeniable fact/truth.
So in answer to the question presented: Yes, there is absolute truth and that in itself is self evident just from logic.
There is TWO absolutes, Death and Taxes. Sorry, not comforting.
As Andre Gide wrote: "Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."
Why believe those who seek truth? Why believe or doubt those who find it? If they have found it, verify and then accept it, falsify it and reject it, or wait and see if new evidence comes in that will do either.
What is the point of seeking truth if you already assume you can't find it?
If you want truth I suggest: Don't believe anything. There is only verifiable fact, speculation, or lies. None of these requires belief, and belief in speculation or lies is counter productive at best and dangerous at worst. Belief in facts is simply redundant.
What do you do instead? Base your conditional opinions on verifiable facts and logic, and be willing to drop any idea that due to new verifiable evidence doesn't meet those criteria.
Belief/faith is the end of searching, the end of rationality and logic.
Belief/faith works both ways. Do I believe there is a god? No. Do I believe there is no god? No. I can't know either way with certainty, so belief in either position is belief in a wild guess. No thanks.
Do I believe in not believing? No. It's a method I developed after years of searching as a way to stop fooling myself, and it has worked well for me. No need for belief in the method. It works or it doesn't.
Logic is key. Anyone who says as a statement of fact that there is no absolute truth is shooting themselves in the foot. Is it to be taken as an absolute truth? If so, it proves itself wrong by supposedly being that which it claims doesn't exist. If it's not to be taken as a statement of fact/absolute truth what good is it? it's meaningless. Its a guess, usually based on the fact that we still really know so little with certainty. But our lack of knowledge doesn't mean there is none to be had. Science and the tech produced by it shows otherwise.
Keep searching. There's very definitely things to find. That's a verifiable, observable and self evident fact.
Yes, there is a very high logical probability there is no absolute truth and knowledge in a book, like the Bible. Yet a third of the world population follows it, like it has all the answers.
No wonder there are so many foxes guarding the hen houses.
by Benny Stiltner 8 years ago
Is there such a thing as "Absolute Truth"? Are you absolutely sure...??I am a firm believer in absolute truth. I find it quite difficult to believe that some will consider answering this question with a dogmatic and passionate "No" and to that response I simply wonder if they...
by CH Elijah Sadaphal 4 years ago
After all, if a person insists that truth is relative (and we can't determine what beliefs are right and wrong), what reason is there to believe anything that they say?
by RighterOne 9 years ago
Is there such a thing as 'Truth'?I've come across a heated issue lately... Is there such a thing as objective truth - that is, certain aspects of reality that stand alone and require nothing else to be 'true'? Or is all so-called truth entirely subjective - that is, it depends on someone to believe...
by Liberian1847 9 years ago
What is the difference between relative truth and absolute truth? Is there anything such an...relative/absolute truth?
by Paula 6 years ago
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,...
by Christopher Wanamaker 8 years ago
Is there any statement of absolute truth that won't eventually lead to a paradox or contradiction?
Copyright © 2021 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|