(August 9, 2010 at 7:12 am)rybak303 Wrote: Through logic objective truth appears to exist. To claim otherwise, that truth is relative, is to make a statement of objective truth, hence contradicting the claim that truth is relative and affirming that it is in fact objective. Likewise, to claim that truth is unknowable is also self-contradictory because to claim to know that truth is unknowable is making a claim to know truth. What we believe can change but truth itself does not change. One can believe that 2+2=5 but the truth will remain that 2+2=4. If truth is objective and does not change depending upon our beliefs then doesn't that imply that an absolute truth that is knowable does in fact exist even if we are unable to understand it in its totality. And if absolute truth exists that is exclusive of all untruth, doesn't that imply the existence of a state of being or realm of absolute truth, perhaps one which we could call God.
Not really. That's a very Platonic account or rationalist account. Specifically, what you have said there is called the Ontological argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
The problem with that is pure logic alone isn't always enough. That was the whole problem with the rationalist/empiricist debate that had it's roots in the rivalry in Plato vs Aristotle and continues today even. A "state of being or realm of absolute truth" as you put it is exactly the same as Plato's forms. For him, the forms exist in an objective, higher world than ours, and we are just the shadow of it. I believe Plotinus later applied this to Christian theology.
