Absolute truth? Yes or no...

[Aidensmom]

However, what a lot of people like to do is say that it can't be PROVEN, therefore it DOESN'T exist, or it MIGHT not exist. Or say that since we can't prove it with tangible facts we can see or touch, that they are just beliefs or opinion. Really? So just b/c you can't prove it, it's not true, or might not be true? Is that what you're saying? If that's the case, might you then be believing in something that is absolutely NOT true? How then, do you reconcile that with the fact that you believe in it?

If something cannot be proven or disproven, then there is the possibility that a belief is not true. I believe it is an absolute truth that God exists, but I do allow for the fact that I am human and therefore could be wrong. How do I reconcile that with the fact that I believe it to be true? Faith.

 

[hokiefan33]

I don't need to revise my answer. These kind of discussions can be interesting, but not in this context - with someone that is not actually seeking truth. I have never believed you actually were - just seeking to cause trouble

Whether you revise it or not, the statement I was referencing was incorrect on it's face, regardless of what context we're in. You said, in reference to whether there is absolute truth or not, yes but depending on the perspective. An absolute truth is just that - it's absolute, for everyone and all the time. Which takes perspective out of the picture. Perspective might make you think it's not absolute, but doesn't change the fact that it is.

For the record, I'm not "seeking" anything, and especially anything from you. I have found all the "truth" I need in Jesus Christ.

 

[BelleMcNally]

Paging Professors Heisenberg and Godel!

I think Descartes tackled this one too...

 

[hokiefan33]

If something cannot be proven or disproven, then there is the possibility that a belief is not true. I believe it is an absolute truth that God exists, but I do allow for the fact that I am human and therefore could be wrong. How do I reconcile that with the fact that I believe it to be true? Faith.

If you believe it is an absolute truth that God exists, but allow for the fact that you might be wrong, then I would say you don't really believe that it is an absolute truth that God exists, or you would need no qualifying statement after saying that. That's like saying "I absolutely believe I'm right. Then again, I could be wrong." Well, if you could be wrong (or think you could, at least), then you can't absolutely believe you're right! If you say that, you're also saying your faith could be wrong or at least mis-placed, in which case you're not even certain of what you believe. What about enough faith to KNOW, ABSOLUTELY that you're right?

 

[sodaseller]

I think Descartes tackled this one too...

Thank you - I stand completed! (Pun intended)

 

[sodaseller]

Whether you revise it or not, the statement I was referencing was incorrect on it's face, regardless of what context we're in. You said, in reference to whether there is absolute truth or not, yes but depending on the perspective. An absolute truth is just that - it's absolute, for everyone and all the time. Which takes perspective out of the picture. Perspective might make you think it's not absolute, but doesn't change the fact that it is.

For the record, I'm not "seeking" anything, and especially anything from you. I have found all the "truth" I need in Jesus Christ.

St. Thomas Aquinas married Christianity to Aristotelian Logic. You are trying to make that union illegitimate. Don't try logic, or ethics.

 

[FencerMcNally]

Well, just because I love to split hairs...

1+1 does not ALWAYS equal 2

If I recall correctly, in binary 1+1=0. If you change the numerical system then you change everything. Similarly, if you change the "point of view" or "perspective" (to use Obi-wan's word) you change everything.

"There are no absolute truths" is technically a logical fallacy. However, the idea of hokiefan all of a sudden subscribing to the rules of logic is laughable to me, considering he/she (sorry haven't read enough to know which gender you are) routinely ignores them elsewhere on these boards.

As to someone saying they believe that something or other is an absolute truth, but admitting that they could be wrong does not imply that they do not, in fact, believe absolutely that that something is an absolute truth. From a strictly grammatical viewpoint, they say in the present tense that they believe something is absolutely true. The word "could" is indicative of the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood deals in this case with future uncertainties. And, since we live in the present that person has absolutely no problem saying that they belive something to be absolutely true, but they could be wrong.

Thank you, I'm here all week, tip your waitresses, and please, try the veal.

 

[Aidensmom]

If you believe it is an absolute truth that God exists, but allow for the fact that you might be wrong, then I would say you don't really believe that it is an absolute truth that God exists, or you would need no qualifying statement after saying that. That's like saying "I absolutely believe I'm right. Then again, I could be wrong." Well, if you could be wrong (or think you could, at least), then you can't absolutely believe you're right! If you say that, you're also saying your faith could be wrong or at least mis-placed, in which case you're not even certain of what you believe. What about enough faith to KNOW, ABSOLUTELY that you're right?

That is not faith, that is arrogance.

 

[FencerMcNally]

And, as to absolute truths themselves, I refer you to both Plato's Allegory of the Cave and the history of science in general. Lots of people think they have absolute truths and are dead wrong. Fundamentally, you can never know absolutely for sure. You can be pretty sure. This is where faith comes in, both in religion and in science. People who do not allow that they might be proven wrong in the future are silly.

 

[hokiefan33]

"There are no absolute truths" is technically a logical fallacy. However, the idea of hokiefan all of a sudden subscribing to the rules of logic is laughable to me, considering he/she (sorry haven't read enough to know which gender you are) routinely ignores them elsewhere on these boards.

Thank you for admitting that what I've been saying is true, in the first part of this sentence. The 2nd part is also your right to say (which evidently you've gathered enough evidence in your whopping 9 posts), but has no bearing on whether the first saying is true, but again, I thank you for backing me up on that one.

As to someone saying they believe that something or other is an absolute truth, but admitting that they could be wrong does not imply that they do not, in fact, believe absolutely that that something is an absolute truth.

Doesn't even make sense that this could be true. Again, it's the same as saying "I'm definitely right, but then again, I could be wrong." It's incompatible.

 

[hokiefan33]

That is not faith, that is arrogance.

Really? How about 1 John 4:17 "In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him." You don't think it's possible to be confident that we are correct in our faith? Do you then also believe that the Bible isn't true? You have some great ideas, Aidensmom, and I agree with probably more than half of what you say. But when it comes down to being sure about what you believe, all the time, unashamed and totally confident about faith in Christ and Christianity the only way, why can't you make that leap?

 

[cardaway]

And, as to absolute truths themselves, I refer you to both Plato's Allegory of the Cave and the history of science in general. Lots of people think they have absolute truths and are dead wrong. Fundamentally, you can never know absolutely for sure. You can be pretty sure. This is where faith comes in, both in religion and in science. People who do not allow that they might be proven wrong in the future are silly.

^ Yep. Many "absolute" truths have later been considered false. None of us can say which one is next, could be 1+1=2.

 

[FencerMcNally]

Thank you for admitting that what I've been saying is true, in the first part of this sentence. The 2nd part is also your right to say (which evidently you've gathered enough evidence in your whopping 9 posts), but has no bearing on whether the first saying is true, but again, I thank you for backing me up on that one.

Doesn't even make sense that this could be true. Again, it's the same as saying "I'm definitely right, but then again, I could be wrong." It's incompatible.

ah yes, my whopping 9 posts. Assuming that since I have only posted 9 times, I have only been reading the threads that those 9 posts come in is also a logical fallacy. I've been reading a lot longer than I've been posting.

Apparently you didn't bother to read my little grammar lesson. You've decided to speak the English language, so you're going to have to follow the rules of that language. There is nothing wrong with the statement, "I'm definitely right, but then again, I could be wrong." "I'm definitely right" is present tense. "I could be wrong" is a future subjunctive construction. Unless you believe that the future and the present coexist simultaneously then you can't logically say that "I'm definitely right, but then again, I could be wrong." is incompatible.

Language is all we have to make sense of the world around us. You can't form a thought if you don't know the words for it.

 

[FencerMcNally]

Really? How about 1 John 4:17 "In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him." You don't think it's possible to be confident that we are correct in our faith? Do you then also believe that the Bible isn't true? You have some great ideas, Aidensmom, and I agree with probably more than half of what you say. But when it comes down to being sure about what you believe, all the time, unashamed and totally confident about faith in Christ and Christianity the only way, why can't you make that leap?

I submit this idea to the group, since it's to do with the connotation of words. I have always believed that being sure of yourself, being certain in any individual moment is confidence. Believing that you will always be right, no matter what the situation, on the other hand, I have always believed to be arrogance. I sum it up this way

Confidence: "I always think I'm right."

Arrogance: "I think I'm always right."

 

[sodaseller]

ah yes, my whopping 9 posts. Assuming that since I have only posted 9 times, I have only been reading the threads that those 9 posts come in is also a logical fallacy. I've been reading a lot longer than I've been posting.

Apparently you didn't bother to read my little grammar lesson. You've decided to speak the English language, so you're going to have to follow the rules of that language. There is nothing wrong with the statement, "I'm definitely right, but then again, I could be wrong." "I'm definitely right" is present tense. "I could be wrong" is a future subjunctive construction. Unless you believe that the future and the present coexist simultaneously then you can't logically say that "I'm definitely right, but then again, I could be wrong." is incompatible.

Language is all we have to make sense of the world around us. You can't form a thought if you don't know the words for it.

Semiotics, methinks. And we are in different semiotic constructs from the OP despite sharing a common language.

As for number of posts as an indicia of reliability, let us consider the great Jewish philospher Mainmonides - "Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it", an observation that should be of great comfort to the Christian that doesn't wish to impose "truth" from a political majoritarian construct

 

[Aidensmom]

Really? How about 1 John 4:17 "In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him." You don't think it's possible to be confident that we are correct in our faith? Do you then also believe that the Bible isn't true? You have some great ideas, Aidensmom, and I agree with probably more than half of what you say. But when it comes down to being sure about what you believe, all the time, unashamed and totally confident about faith in Christ and Christianity the only way, why can't you make that leap?

Not that it is any of your business, but I have "made that leap." That leap is a leap of FAITH. I am confident. I have no need to prove any of that to you, and your opinion, yes opinion, of my relationship with God has no relevance. You asked if people thought there were absolute truths, I answered you. I am a human being with the limited knowledge and the limited ability to understand God that all human beings have, and I am not going to claim to have otherwise.

 

[sodaseller]

I submit this idea to the group, since it's to do with the connotation of words. I have always believed that being sure of yourself, being certain in any individual moment is confidence. Believing that you will always be right, no matter what the situation, on the other hand, I have always believed to be arrogance. I sum it up this way

Confidence: "I always think I'm right."

Arrogance: "I think I'm always right."

Well said - I like that

 

[L107ANGEL]

I know I am not thinkng straight due to being ill, but this thread just confused the hell out of me

 

[copper68]

I know I am not thinkng straight due to being ill, but this thread just confused the hell out of me

is that the absolute truth?

 

[hokiefan33]

You've decided to speak the English language, so you're going to have to follow the rules of that language. There is nothing wrong with the statement, "I'm definitely right, but then again, I could be wrong." "I'm definitely right" is present tense. "I could be wrong" is a future subjunctive construction. Unless you believe that the future and the present coexist simultaneously then you can't logically say that "I'm definitely right, but then again, I could be wrong." is incompatible.

Well then, before we even get to tense, which you seem stuck on, you also have to look at the meaning of the words used. You say there's nothing wrong with the statement "I'm definitely right, but then again, I could be wrong." How so? If you're "definitely" right, then that means you are confident that you are right. It makes no assumption as to when you are right, only that you ARE right. And if you're definitely right, then you can't also be wrong, at any point, when talking about the same thing. Can you say "the ocean is definitely wet, but then again, it could be dry"? No, b/c it can't be both at the same time, and you've already said that it is DEFINITELY wet. You can't use an "absolute word", in whatever tense, and then contradict that absolute word. It IS absolutely incompatible.