Absolute Truth (I know, but I need some help)

[Spacetime]

Hey all,

I posted here for the first time in July, I believe it was, having recently given up my "faith".  Since then I've been doing my best to immerse myself in unlearning all the presuppositions that religion infected me with.  I've recently been invited to a formal gentlemen's discussion group to participate in some very deep conversation (hopefully).  They are young guys, like myself, who get together formally, following Robert's Rules of Order and a dress code, to have religious and philosophical discussions.  I've had some limited experience with these types of formats when I was a bit younger.  

Here, however, most of them (if not all?) are theists.  They, as a group, had concluded that they believe that absolute truths exist.  The person who invited me to the group made a caveat that this was because they all believed in a god.  Now, since giving up my "faith", I've studied morality to some degree, and have adopted the opinion that |m| (absolute morality) is a non-sensical thing or doesn't exist.  However, absolute truth is a very different thing.  If this is brought up again, and I hope it is because I'd love to hear their opinions on it, I would like to be more conversant on the topic.

At present, I think it's possible that absolute truths exist.  BUT I can imagine alternate universes where the fundamental mechanics of our universe are absent, lessening the probability of any one truth's survival in transcendence.  In physics, we see these mechanics breaking down the closer we get to anomalies like "black holes".   

Maybe a meaningful answer to the question "do absolute truths exist?" is "it doesn't matter if they do, because they wouldn't benefit us unless we can measure and apply them to our own benefit in THIS existence."

Because truth matters to me, I'd like to know if truth is transcendent or absolute in anyway.  But I can't help but think I'm projecting myself wishfully onto a fruitless endeavor.

I also can't help but apply my arguments against absolute morality to absolute truth.  I'd rather not derail this thread with morality, as I am more concerned with absolute truth at the moment, given my soon-approaching meeting with this group.

Can you please offer a good argument one way or the other?  Or provide me with something that I can digest rather quickly to make me more conversant on the topic (this meeting is in the next few days)?

I thought it was nice of them to invite an atheist... though I'm still skeptical.    ... as always.    Thanks for the help in advance!

[FatAndFaithless]

I think you'd have to start simply with defining what 'absolute truth' even means. Do you simply mean 'absolute certainty', or something else?

[Longhorn]

.... define 'truth'


Btw, welcome back Spacetime. I hope we're able to help

[houseofcantor]

I'm helping. 

[Exian]

Absolute truth about what, though? Absolutely everything? That's conjecture, isn't it? Wouldn't we need a shit load more information before we could make a call on absolute truth?

[Kingpin]

So if you deny absolute truths exist, then what you would be saying is truth is relative. The statement, "truth is relative" is self-defeating. It either includes itself or excludes itself. If it includes itself then that statement is also relative and not always true. If it excludes itself it's positing an absolute while denying their existence.

I've seen statements like:

“Although Christianity may be true for you, it isn’t true for me.”

“You may believe in God and that’s okay for you, but it’s not true for me.”

“All religions are just different paths leading to truth.”

Each of these statements assumes truth can be different for different people at the same time. This violates that law of non-contradiction. Christian apologists maintain that although people are free to believe whatever they want to believe about the claims of Christianity, those beliefs have no logical bearing on whether the claims of Christianity are actually true or not true. Regardless of what people believe, God’s existence and Christianity are either really true or really false. If the God of the Bible exists, then what the Bible teaches about God’s existence is true and what an atheist believes about God is false. Conversely, if God does not exist, then what an atheist believes about God is true and what a Christian believes is false. It is logically impossible for both Christianity and atheism to be true, even though people on both sides of the issue may firmly believe their beliefs are true.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Absolutes truth is to claim certainty, and certainty is dangerous when not tempered with reason.

The law of God is absolute, it cannot be challenged, you can't argue with God, it can't be reasoned with. That kind of law is by definition immoral, it has nothing to do with being decent, it's about obedience, adherence to the law whatever the law happens to be, this kind of absolutist thinking is what causes members of certain sects to deny their children life saving treatments like blood transfusions, they will passively euthanize their own children because of a vague passage in a book, it is a slave mentality.

To claim to an absolute is to deny yourself the ability to question your actions, to abandon reason. If you're certain, then you don't need a reason.

[Spacetime]

HA!  Awesome replies!  Thanks.  I tip my hat.... I should have clarified, so thanks for calling me on it.

Truth ...in terms of "that which comports with reality" (please exclude hard solipsism for the sake of discussion).

Absolute ...in it's modern definition of being complete and undiminished.

[Spacetime]

Absolute truth about what, though? Absolutely everything? That's conjecture, isn't it? Wouldn't we need a shit load more information before we could make a call on absolute truth?

Yeah, I agree.  Wouldn't the conversation need to be about a specific truth claim?

[Kingpin]

Absolute truth about what, though? Absolutely everything? That's conjecture, isn't it? Wouldn't we need a shit load more information before we could make a call on absolute truth?

Yeah, I agree.  Wouldn't the conversation need to be about a specific truth claim?

Only to determine if the subject is true or not (that is if you accept truth is not relative but can be known), but your question was about absolute truths existing or not.  This can be addressed regardless of the subject.