MassAtheist

Sorry, I missed that. With this definition, I stand by my original statement. I don't believe that Absolute Truth exists. I don't believe there is a "secret to all life" or a meaning for existance. The universe is. There is no meaning, IMHO.

Blu

Anything personal is a relative truth. I personally believe that there is an Absolute Truth but my belief is still relative.

Absolute truth is a concept... Believing in Absolute Truth is like believing in God. Could God be a concept of Absolute Truth instead of a Being?

Absolute Truth is something beyond the human mind but catching glimpses of it may be the unifying principle that human beings need in the world.

Think of everything in terms of systems. There is the individual, the family, the community, the city, the state, the country, the earth, the solar system, then eventually the Universe. If we have a belief (an individual) then there is a range of beliefs (family), then there is the "religion" (community), then there is the majority belief in the culture (city), and then all of these relative truths are swirling inside the pot of Absolute Truth. Same with science... there are many disciplines in science all of these are in the Pot of Absolute Truth. But it isn't the pot (Absolute) because each relative truth does not include all other aspects.

It is like saying an individual with one race, one religion, one body type, one form of DNA is a representative of all the human species. This is relative. An Absolute would include all species, all body types, all DNA, all hair color, all skin color, all races etc.

So one relative belief cannot be an Absolute.

It is a belief that there are systems within systems that brings about the concept of Absolute Truth... and to go even further the belief in God. Absolute Truth is supposed to be the all encompassing system meaning this Absolute Truth is not within another system. God to is also supposed to be the "end of the line." God is supposed to be the container of all systems but not within another system.

The Universe too is supposed to be the container of all systems and not within another macrosystem.

bd-from-kg

Blu :

OK, that’s your relative truth. My relative truth is that there’s no such thing as “the secret to all life, existence etc.” If these are indeed “relative” truths, then for me there is no such thing as the secret to all life and existence, but to you there is. How does this make sense? It would seem that anything that deserves to be called “Absolute Truth” must be true for everyone

Here you lose me completely. Say that X argues that Chicago is to the north of El Paso and Y argues that it’s to the south. Are both of them “essentially wrong” because Absolute Truth is not relative truth and will never be known?

But perhaps you mean these comments to apply only to religious beliefs. OK, let’s say that X argues that there is a real, concrete supernatural entity with the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, etc., and Y argues that there is no such entity. Are both of them “essentially wrong” because Absolute Truth is not relative truth and will never be known? This seems to me to be completely incoherent. As far as I can see, the only significant difference between this and the previous case is that here it is reasonable to take the position that one or more of the notions of omniscience, omnipotence, etc. are self-contradictory or that two or more of them are logically incompatible. But in that case Y is right: there is no entity with these properties, any more than there is an entity which has the properties of being round and square. In any case, X and Y cannot both be “essentially wrong” because the propositions that there is such an entity and that there isn’t exhaust the logical possibilities.

Nonsense. If some of the supposed attributes of God are self-contradictory or logically incompatible, I have the authority to say that anyone who believes that there is an entity with these attributes is wrong. And even the belief is not self-contradictory, if there is no rational justification for a given religious belief, I am perfectly justified in saying that a person who holds such a belief is wrong to do so, even though I may not be able to prove that the belief itself is false.

To illustrate this point, suppose that X refuses to make any provision for his children’s college education (even though he desperately wants them to go to college) or refuses to provide for his old age (even though he is very concerned about his welfare in his later years) because he is quite certain (for no rational reason) that he is going to win the state lottery in the meantime. I am justified in saying that he is wrong to make these choices, which implies that it is wrong for him to hold this belief without any rational justification. Of course, it’s possible that he might actually win the lottery, but that wouldn’t make me wrong: it would still have been wrong of him to base his plans on this irrational expectation.

It’s wrong in exactly the same way for someone to base his actions on the irrational expectation (to take an example at random) that he will enjoy eternal bliss if only he accepts Jesus as his savior.

Blu

Another thought:

Could Absolute Truth, God, and the Universe be one in the same? You believe in Universe right?

Koyaanisqatsi

What is the qualitative difference (to Relative and Absolute Truths)? It seems the only limitations here are self-imposed.

As for your terminology, get rid of the word "believe" and then you'll have a worthwhile discussion.

(edited for clarification and addendum - Koy)

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

John Page

Not so, all statements are relative to the observer.

"Belief maketh not a truth or dream be real, that even in your heart of hearts you know true love, ones dearest friend betrays the sacred trust and thus becomes the dawn of knowledge."

Cheers

Blu

This just came to me....

Bare with me.....


Absolute Truth can not be known to an individual because an individual can never know simultaneously what it is like to be a fish (and all different kind, a bird (all different kinds), a mammal (from rat to gorilla), and the experiences of being both man and woman, an America, an African, a European, an Asian, and all the other types of races of human beings on the earth. It isn't within the capacity of the human to be all of these things all at one, to experience life as all of these things all at once.

This concept applies to Absolute Truth. And that is why none of us can be anything more than Relative.

Not Prince Hamlet

Interesting thought:

Assume for the sake of argument that there exists an omniscient god. Obviously, this god's omniscience would mean that he would know every "absolute truth", right?

Now, if someone knows all absolute truths, can he know any relative ones? That is, could a god know a truth that is only subjective to god, but is false when viewed from another perspective, yet still have both points of view be considered truths?

Taking this a step further, and assume that all of God's truths are absolute truths (a reasonable assumption given omniscience). If everything God knows is absolute, and God knows everything, then how can there be relative truths? It would be a matter of either agreeing with God, or being wrong.

I propose that the existance of an omniscient diety precludes the absolute/relative truth dichotomy.

Jeff

MassAtheist

Of course I believe in the universe. If God == Universe == Absolute Truth, then why introduce new terms ("God", "Absolute Truth") for something that already has a name, "universe"?

MassAtheist

From the original post (paraphrased), relative truths are personal truths - perceptions, beliefs born from experience. So relative truths can still exist even if Absolute Truth exists. The relative truths are just "wrong" (assuming that Absolute Truth is "right"), but they still "exist".