Absolute truth and human understanding

[Purple Rabbit]

I think most of us humans agree that we are not all-knowing beings. We are not gods ourselves. Still as it comes to religion, absolute statements fill the room, the blogosphere, books, debate. How can this be? How can it be that Daystar writes "The Word of God, though, is always right", as an absolute truth. Has he somehow acquired a state of all-knowingness, or is this an example of how the wish is father to the thought.

[Tiberius]

Simple. The Bible claims that God is never wrong, and that it was written by God through man. Thus by the logic of circular reasoning...

TADA!

[Purple Rabbit]

Simple. The Bible claims that God is never wrong, and that it was written by God through man. Thus by the logic of circular reasoning...

TADA!

Are you absolutely certain about that?

[Tiberius]

I'm 100% certain about it but I wouldn't say I know absolutely

[Purple Rabbit]

I'm 100% certain about it but I wouldn't say I know absolutely

Do you leave in some irrational room between 100% certain and absolutely certain for some experiments with personal dogma or are you just fiddling around with words?

[Edwardo Piet]

I would like to continue this thread.
I think the whole absolute truth claims is what causes a lot of problems.
Dogma is the huge problem for me. Dogma is when "faith" goes from bad to worse.
But "faith" generally is thought not to be questioned anyway by a lot of the world. So what's the main difference? That's what I'm wondering about this.
Is it perhaps that dogma is worse because its not just unquestioned "faith" but its faith that is forced upon others?
What does it take to go from "faith" to dogma?
Evf

[Eilonnwy]

I hate the notion of absolute certainty. It's completely useless. There's always room for doubt no matter how infinitesimal. I think understanding things can't be absolutely certain but at least certain to an almost absolute degree allows for people to have a meaningful conversation. People like Daystar who claim absolute certainty of a book based on hearsay is not worth my time.

[Edwardo Piet]

I hate the notion of absolute certainty. It's completely useless. There's always room for doubt no matter how infinitesimal. I think understanding things can't be absolutely certain but at least certain to an almost absolute degree allows for people to have a meaningful conversation. People like Daystar who claim absolute certainty of a book based on hearsay is not worth my time.

I agree. It is argued that the only absolutely proven things are mathematics like 2+2=4.
But I've argued that how can we be 100% absolutely sure that we're not in a computer simulation that works by completely different laws of mathematics or some really weird equivalent to mathetmatics? Could we simply say: That's 100% impossible because we can only conceive of one type of mathematics. And/or because we can't conceive of a universe without numbers. Thats absurd" - could we 100% for absolutely 100% certain for sure? Lol. Could we 100% KNOW that absolutely I mean? Rather.
Indeed it is totally absurd. But can we 100% know that this is not possible simply because us higher-apes can not conceive of how such an idea would be possible?
I'm not sure. I'm very open lol. It seems 100% ridiculous.
But what if you buy into infinite universes and infinite parallel univeres and 11 (or possibly more undiscovered) dimensons etc?
Then could we still say this for 100% certain? Absolutely? And 100% KNOW this?
I'm not 100% absolutely sure about that. Nope. I'd like to hear a response by those who hold different views. I wonder if anyone agrees that its possible that even mathematics can't be 100% absolutely known for certain (as far as we know, lol).
I've met people who are de-facto (and never absolutest) on EVERYTHING except matematics. They 100% KNOW that absolutely for certain there is only one mathematics and no alternatives even including (or at least considering) infinite universes, other dimensions, parallel universes and a multiverse.
I'm not 100% absolute on this. I dont claim to know even this for certain.
Mathematics is probably proven more than anything else! Maybe even as much or more than the fact I believe myself exists.
But I do not worship that mathematics can be known above everything else to be the only way. I dunno. I'm VERY open minded I just try to always reject claims without evidence. To reject bullshit. I hope I'm not TOO open minded. As Dawkins says: Some people are so open minded their brains drop out.
Once again: I don't know absolutely about this. I don't think
Evf

[Kyuuketsuki]

I usually annoy theists when I say things like science and truth (implicitly absolute) have little to do with each other

Kyu

[CoxRox]

I think most of us humans agree that we are not all-knowing beings. We are not gods ourselves. Still as it comes to religion, absolute statements fill the room, the blogosphere, books, debate. How can this be? How can it be that Daystar writes "The Word of God, though, is always right", as an absolute truth. Has he somehow acquired a state of all-knowingness, or is this an example of how the wish is father to the thought.

Just digressing slightly from the thread, Daystar makes a similar statement on another forum:

'The Bible isn't a science book but when it touches on subjects related to science it is correct.'

It is his inability to realise that if you are to make such a statement without backing it up with evidence, or proof, you will not be taken seriously.

Why does 'absolute' matter? In philosophical/relgious debates it appears, but in real life it doesn't seem to be that important. At the end of the day, we all decide what we 100% believe e.g I 100% believe I exist, I do not doubt this in any way, so to me my existence is absolute. It may not be to you, but it's how I perceive it that matters.
Am I talking gobaldy gook?